Is FLARM helpful? [Archive]

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 23rd 15, 10:00 PM

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:59:15 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Wondering if there are any statistics regarding Flarm use in the the U.S.? i know at the glider port I fly from most have Flarm, but I see many gliders for sale on Wings and Wheels do not have Flarm.

You have to select the appropriate denominator when you look at "use". If you look as a percent of all FAA-registered gliders it will be pretty low - but lots of gliders on the registry are inoperative or even destroyed. If you assume a few thousand regularly flying gliders then the penetration is probably less than 30%. However, if you look at the most active gliders that represent most of the flight hours (and therefore collision threat) there are two broad groups - training and ride gliders and cross-country and racing gliders.

There have been a number of clubs and commercial operators (e.g. Soaring Club of Houston and Williams Soaring) that have equipped their entire fleets, but generally you'll see less here because of cost, lack of battery power and other reasons. They tend to spend a lot of time around the airport and in the pattern. The cross country and racing set have higher penetration - virtually all the high-hours OLC pilots on the west coast (due in part to extensive convergence and street flying at high altitudes and airspeeds) have adopted Flarm. Among racing pilots responding to this fall's poll 77% overall and 94% of pilots who flew in a Nationals have Flarm.

I'd wager that some of the gliders you are seeing for sale have not flown a lot and are being sold for that reason. I wouldn't take it as totally representative of the proportion of Flarm-equipped gliders you are likely to observe when you go flying, which is more based on hours in the air.

If you are just doing patterns and flying locally, collision avoidance will tend to be more "old-school" see-and-avoid, but it varies a lot with the local operation. If you intend to go cross country or fly in a contest it'll be a very different story. It's increasingly frowned upon to show up at a contest or OLC camp without one and some are now Flarm mandatory.

9B

Casey Cox

November 23rd 15, 10:31 PM

Ok. How long has Flarm been readily available/used, and is there anything starting to take its place that would make Flarm obsolete or not purchased as much in a couple of years?

Richard[_9_]

November 23rd 15, 11:09 PM

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
> Ok. How long has Flarm been readily available/used, and is there anything starting to take its place that would make Flarm obsolete or not purchased as much in a couple of years?

I think I sold my first PowerFlarm in Spring 2011. I don't see anything in development to replace it or provide the collision avoidance features.

http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 24th 15, 03:55 AM

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
> Ok. How long has Flarm been readily available/used, and is there anything starting to take its place that would make Flarm obsolete or not purchased as much in a couple of years?

Here - read this. Should give you everything you need to know.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bw1ChKkWEYLNNHJMU2ZyVy16QzQ

9B

Sean Fidler

November 24th 15, 04:39 AM

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 8:35:10 PM UTC-5, Casey Cox wrote:
> Has anyone been thankful that they have had FLARM?
>
> And do the same people have a transponder?
>
> How many people fly with FLARM or Transponder?
>
> Let's hear about the close calls, or potential close calls, or even the peace of mind of awareness.

FWIW, I have had at least 2 very close calls in which I would have been very, very close to a collision without FLARM. Equally important, I have had numerous FLARM warnings in which I was not aware of the glider nearby until the warning. These warnings (quite common) are invaluable and their situation awareess safety value is incalcuable.

The first close call was actually during the very first week that the flarm was released in the USA during the 2011 Uvulde glide. Two open class gliders flew right across my nose (45 degrees off head on). Less than 50 meters at the exact altitude. I saw the first at the last second (no flarm). I never would have seen the second glider (in trail of the first) without the flarm warning. Terrifying but I was able to get a visual on the second and dive below. We would have hit nose to nose without the dive. The collision was maybe 5 seocnds away. I was shaking for the next hour. Im not sure if they ever saw me.

From that moment on, I felt failry exposed flying without FLARM...and feel that gliders flying contrsts or busy enviornments without FLARM are failry dangerous. The other close call would have almost certainly been a head on collision in a pre-start situation. I am a "scan freak" and am always moving my head and my eyes, and try not to rely on FLARM at all as there are always at least a few non-flarm gliders in any group. Regardless of that flaw, FLARM warnings are almost always useful and highly acurate.

A good example of a FLARM warning is at the 9:10 point of this video: https://vimeo.com/52396659

So the short answer is yes, I am thankful of Flarm and thankful to the fellow pilots (and towpilots) who have invested in it.

7T

bertvaneyken

November 24th 15, 08:37 AM

Even for gliders in the local pattern you should certainly consider buying a FLARM.
In our club we decided to install it in every aircraft, even the paraclub decided to install devices in their drop planes.

We had serveral very very close calls:
- The Cessna Grand caravan in short final aborted the approach because of the flarm beeping like crazy.
Our twin was just below in front of him in his blind spot. Luckily he didn't wait a blink of an eye longer.
- A tow pilot with glider on the rope not seeing another glider in the pattern, the instructor too busy with the student.
Only the flarm alerted them to make evasive manoevres.
- And a few others...

Flarm certainly saved our asses several times

Bert

Ramy[_2_]

November 24th 15, 12:26 PM

I think the reason that gliders for sale are not Flarm equipped is that their owners rather keep the Flarm and move it to their new ships, since once you fly with one you will never want to fly without it.

Ramy (With handful of Flarm saves in over 1000 hours with Flarm)

Renny[_2_]

November 24th 15, 04:47 PM

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I think the reason that gliders for sale are not Flarm equipped is that their owners rather keep the Flarm and move it to their new ships, since once you fly with one you will never want to fly without it.
>
> Ramy (With handful of Flarm saves in over 1000 hours with Flarm)

Agree 100% with Ramy. I had a portable PF in my Discus 2b, and when I sold it in early 2012, I kept the PF for my new LAK....As far as close calls, many of the folks that fly at Moriarty have had PowerFlarms since 2011 and I do believe it has been a major enhancement to safety. It has personally alerted me on several occasions over the past 5 seasons to gliders coming head on at high speed especially under cloudstreets. These alerts allowed me to alter my course and avoid any potential conflict. This past season we had an incident where two gliders came within 20-30 feet from each other and they never saw each other until the very last second. One glider had a PF and one did not....The pilot who did not have a PF went out and bought a PF immediately...

Finally, I do fly with a transponder and a PF as do many other folks at Moriarty. The use of transponders is also extremely important in our area as there is a fair amount of jet traffic passing over the area as they descend into Albuquerque. Albuquerque approach is very aware of gliders at Moriarty using 1202 on their transponders. When they "see" us they do try to route the airlines away from us and/or try to keep them above 18K as they pass west bound over the Moriarty area. Once past Moriarty they then allow them to descend into Albuquerque....This does really help minimize potential conflicts. Now, be safe out there! Thx - Renny

James Metcalfe

November 24th 15, 05:44 PM

At 12:26 24 November 2015, Ramy wrote:
>... (With handful of Flarm saves in over 1000 hours with Flarm)

Interestingly, my experience is just the opposite: in 1593 hours in
the French Alps since 2007 (only 208 hours of which were without
Flarm), I have had no relevant alert from Flarm but hundreds of
false alarms. However I have experienced several dangerous or
very dangerous events (and many more daft ones) which can only
reasonably be ascribed to Flarm - or rather the false expectations
that some pilots seem to have of it.
The most stupid of these was two gliders simultaneously overtaking
me at speed from directly behind on a ridge, one each side, at
exactly my height, and with a horizontal separation of about a
wingspan. Fortunately, I had insisted that my pupil did *not* take
evasive action from the Flarm-announced threat, pointing out that
we might just turn into the path of the (imagined) single overtaker.
(I presume that the 2 overtakers thought "they know we're coming,
so they won't do anything stupid"!)
In the 2000+ hours in the Alps before Flarm I saw no such
dangerous behaviour; nor in the 208 hours 'gap' without Flarm in
2008.
Of course, nothing can be proved. But enthusiasts for Flarm should
be aware it has its down-sides.

Richard[_9_]

November 24th 15, 06:03 PM

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 12:26 24 November 2015, Ramy wrote:
> >... (With handful of Flarm saves in over 1000 hours with Flarm)
>
> Interestingly, my experience is just the opposite: in 1593 hours in
> the French Alps since 2007 (only 208 hours of which were without
> Flarm), I have had no relevant alert from Flarm but hundreds of
> false alarms. However I have experienced several dangerous or
> very dangerous events (and many more daft ones) which can only
> reasonably be ascribed to Flarm - or rather the false expectations
> that some pilots seem to have of it.
> The most stupid of these was two gliders simultaneously overtaking
> me at speed from directly behind on a ridge, one each side, at
> exactly my height, and with a horizontal separation of about a
> wingspan. Fortunately, I had insisted that my pupil did *not* take
> evasive action from the Flarm-announced threat, pointing out that
> we might just turn into the path of the (imagined) single overtaker.
> (I presume that the 2 overtakers thought "they know we're coming,
> so they won't do anything stupid"!)
> In the 2000+ hours in the Alps before Flarm I saw no such
> dangerous behaviour; nor in the 208 hours 'gap' without Flarm in
> 2008.
> Of course, nothing can be proved. But enthusiasts for Flarm should
> be aware it has its down-sides.

Really James, I suspect something is very wrong with your Flarm.

I have approximately 1000 hours with PowerFlarm and have not experienced any issues with false alarms. 6 camps and contests with as many as 65 gliders.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

James Metcalfe

November 24th 15, 07:12 PM

At 18:03 24 November 2015, Richard wrote:
>... Really James, I suspect something is very wrong with your
Flarm. ...

Interesting thought. That would mean a fault in the Flarm
algorithms, or (highly improbable) a bad but operable installation of
the Flarm firmware. And, BTW, more than one Flarm unit was used
over those years.
J.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 24th 15, 09:44 PM

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:16:35 AM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 18:03 24 November 2015, Richard wrote:
> >... Really James, I suspect something is very wrong with your
> Flarm. ...
>
> Interesting thought. That would mean a fault in the Flarm
> algorithms, or (highly improbable) a bad but operable installation of
> the Flarm firmware. And, BTW, more than one Flarm unit was used
> over those years.
> J.

Since you've owned several I guess it's safe to say there's more benefit than downside.

I'd be hard pressed to say I've ever had a false alarm - I guess it depends on how you define such a thing. If you mean an alarm when there were no other gliders in the air I would definitely look at whether you need to replace the hardware or firmware. If you mean you got an alarm for a glider in the area that you didn't think was an immediate threat you might consider 'competition mode' which sets the collision parameters tighter before issuing an alarm. We all have our comfort zone, but I'd be dubious about reports of alarms where that projected flight paths of the gliders involved weren't crossing within the radius of error that the algorithm assumes. As you may recall, Flarm projects curving flight paths, so you don't need to be on a straight-line converging path to generate an alarm. In a busy thermal you'll get lots of alarms, but the flying is so dynamic that the threats can come and go with regularity. It's not so much a false alarm in that case, but a transient conflict and probably not super-helpful, but technology has its limits in the analog world.

If the OP is considering whether to equip with Flarm I'd say if you intend to fly with other gliders, get one and if the other gliders don't all have them already, organize a group purchase.

I've had lots of useful alarms. I'd wager at least one prevented me from taking the silk elevator home.

9B

Ramy[_2_]

November 24th 15, 10:59 PM

One thing to point out is that James is likely referring to the European Flarm while most of us referring to Powerflarm which I understand is superior especially in the user interface side (butterfly display etc) and as such I believe better visually distinguishing between alerts and collision alarm..

Ramy

Tango Whisky

November 25th 15, 08:46 AM

Am Dienstag, 24. November 2015 23:59:45 UTC+1 schrieb Ramy:
> One thing to point out is that James is likely referring to the European Flarm while most of us referring to Powerflarm which I understand is superior especially in the user interface side (butterfly display etc) and as such I believe better visually distinguishing between alerts and collision alarm.
>
> Ramy

I have about 1600 hours flying with the European Flarm in the French and Swiss Alps, and I have had more than one occasion where the Flarm warning solved a very hairy situation. I also have had many false alarms, but I can live with that - I'd always take a false positive over a false negative.
On the technical side, I take good care that my antenna coverage is acceptable in any direction (which requires more than one antenna on a carbon fuselage).

Bert
Ventus cM TW

Stephen Damon

November 25th 15, 02:34 PM

It is amazing what we pay for gas, insurance, tow fees and hanger fees, and also life insurance. What is a parachute, the real life insurance not life insurance that pays your heirs. So what Flarm, another form of real life insurance, that will keep you from using your parachute incase you have too. Not to mention if you have had a collision with a sailplane or larger ship you will most likely be in bad shape. Yes I know chutes may need to be used with a collision. So to me, Flarm is just another form of real life saving insurance, that is pretty inexpensive for what it had and can do.

Mark628CA

November 25th 15, 03:38 PM

I consider PowerFlarm to be a great asset in the cockpit. I have had a couple of warnings that may have made a difference. In one, I was thermalling with another glider when the warning went off. I was tempted to ignore it because I had "eyes on target" and I am sure the other pilot was watching me. A quick glance at the Flarm display indicated that the alarm was for someone in my low five o'clock position. Sure enough, a glance over my shoulder showed that another glider had joined us at speed and with a pullup into the circle. I was startled, but not freaked out- because I had the warning. If he hadn't had Flarm, it would have been much more disconcerting. I wish everybody had 'em, but I am not going to make a big deal out of it. I consider it one more source of insurance, just like my transponder, and yes, my glasses.

[email protected]

November 25th 15, 04:33 PM

> On the technical side, I take good care that my antenna coverage is acceptable in any direction (which requires more than one antenna on a carbon fuselage).
>
> Bert
> Ventus cM TW

Bert,
Could you tell us where you place your multiple antennas on your carbon fuselage, and the type of antennas you are using.
Thanks,
Mark

Tango Whisky

November 25th 15, 04:49 PM

Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2015 17:34:47 UTC+1 schrieb :
> > On the technical side, I take good care that my antenna coverage is acceptable in any direction (which requires more than one antenna on a carbon fuselage).
> >
> > Bert
> > Ventus cM TW
>
> Bert,
> Could you tell us where you place your multiple antennas on your carbon fuselage, and the type of antennas you are using.
> Thanks,
> Mark

I have an antenna splitter; one antenna is placed as a stripe antenna in the canopy to the side behind my head, and the other antenna is the standard "toothpick" placed next to a gear door.

Works well.

Bert
Ventus cM TW

James Metcalfe

November 25th 15, 06:38 PM

At 21:44 24 November 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>... Since you've owned several I guess it's safe to say there's
more benefit
>than downside. ...

Sorry to disappoint: I haven't owned any. These were 3 different
units in 2 club-owned two-seaters, flown in the French Alps
where Flarm was mandated by all the clubs in the area.

On balance Flarm *may* indeed be beneficial. But the purpose
of my post was to point out that there *are* significant
downsides. Pilots should be aware of these and avoid indulging
in gratuitously risky practices, under the illusion that Flarm will
protect them. They should also avoid making vigorous evasive
manoeuvres in response to Flarm alone: it is imperative to see
the threat before making anything other than a gentle
manoeuvre, perhaps a small wing-waggle to aid conspicuity.
This applies not only to threats from behind / blind spots. I am
sure that vigorous manoeuvres (unexpected by the other pilot,
who could see that the situation was under control) will result in
collisions - or perhaps already have ("such a shame ... and they
both had Flarm")

Finally I should say that my initial expectation of Flarm (and
BTW I love the technology!) was that it would significantly
reduce effective lookout - I'm afraid that's just my view of
human nature. That may or may not have happened - how could
I tell? However, as soon as I flew with Flarm, I was shocked to
discover what crazy manoeuvres other pilots were making,
which I had not experienced before, and which disappeared
when I next flew without Flarm.

>... I guess it depends on how you define [false alarm] ...

No, I didn't mean warnings given about empty space! I meant
collision warnings about a glider opposite me in the thermal, or
established in another, distant, thermal, or 500+ feet above or
below, etc. In other words, when no collision risk existed or
developed, regardless of how 'competitive' I felt.

J.

James Metcalfe

November 25th 15, 06:44 PM

At 22:59 24 November 2015, Ramy wrote:
>One thing to point out is that James is likely referring to the
European
>Flarm while most of us referring to Powerflarm which I
understand is
>superior especially in the user interface side (butterfly display
etc) and as such
>I believe better visually distinguishing between alerts and collision
>alarm
>Ramy

Indeed, I have not come across a Powerflarm unit, and don't know
what the differences are. But I don't feel that there is any
ambiguity in 'European' Flarm indications.
J.

son_of_flubber

November 25th 15, 07:36 PM

Flarm just announced a new external antenna recommended for carbon and metal planes (Flarm and Powerflarm frequencies).

jfitch

November 25th 15, 09:29 PM

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:45:05 AM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 21:44 24 November 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >... Since you've owned several I guess it's safe to say there's
> more benefit
> >than downside. ...
>
> Sorry to disappoint: I haven't owned any. These were 3 different
> units in 2 club-owned two-seaters, flown in the French Alps
> where Flarm was mandated by all the clubs in the area.
>
> On balance Flarm *may* indeed be beneficial. But the purpose
> of my post was to point out that there *are* significant
> downsides. Pilots should be aware of these and avoid indulging
> in gratuitously risky practices, under the illusion that Flarm will
> protect them. They should also avoid making vigorous evasive
> manoeuvres in response to Flarm alone: it is imperative to see
> the threat before making anything other than a gentle
> manoeuvre, perhaps a small wing-waggle to aid conspicuity.
> This applies not only to threats from behind / blind spots. I am
> sure that vigorous manoeuvres (unexpected by the other pilot,
> who could see that the situation was under control) will result in
> collisions - or perhaps already have ("such a shame ... and they
> both had Flarm")
>
> Finally I should say that my initial expectation of Flarm (and
> BTW I love the technology!) was that it would significantly
> reduce effective lookout - I'm afraid that's just my view of
> human nature. That may or may not have happened - how could
> I tell? However, as soon as I flew with Flarm, I was shocked to
> discover what crazy manoeuvres other pilots were making,
> which I had not experienced before, and which disappeared
> when I next flew without Flarm.
>
> >... I guess it depends on how you define [false alarm] ...
>
> No, I didn't mean warnings given about empty space! I meant
> collision warnings about a glider opposite me in the thermal, or
> established in another, distant, thermal, or 500+ feet above or
> below, etc. In other words, when no collision risk existed or
> developed, regardless of how 'competitive' I felt.
>
> J.

I am curious about your experience with the interface. Did you just have the BF display, or was the Flarm also displaying targets on a moving map?

I have not had any Flarm warnings that would have saved a midair (3 years with it now). But I have always had Flarm targets displayed on the glide computer moving map, and so nearly always see them long before they could be considered a threat. Two times in those three years I have gotten an unexpected warning, though not close enough to require action to avoid collision. I use those events as a learning experience to see how I need to change my scans and operations, so that they do not happen again.

From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential conflicts in the first place than the actual warning facility.

Countless times that Flarm has identified and displayed glider within a km of me that I had not seen and might never have seen.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 25th 15, 11:39 PM

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:29:44 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
>
> From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential conflicts in the first place than the actual warning facility.
>

Important observation. Pilots who fly in the thermal streets and convergence lines of the western US point this out pretty regularly. Head-to-head traffic at 17,999' can easily close at 5-6 statute miles per minute. In this case particularly (low-contrast, small head-on cross-section, potential for evasion maneuvers to make things worse with crossed wings) longer range situational awareness is critical to avoiding conflicts - often with a simple radio call to coordinate. Also a good reason to register with FarmNet - how many people really would be able to properly read and call out (or even recognize) an ICAO/Flarm ID in a time-constrained conflict situation? "AA8E2F, please turn right immediately!"

9B

Richard[_9_]

November 26th 15, 03:12 PM

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 3:39:17 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:29:44 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> >
> > From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential conflicts in the first place than the actual warning facility.
> >
>
> Important observation. Pilots who fly in the thermal streets and convergence lines of the western US point this out pretty regularly. Head-to-head traffic at 17,999' can easily close at 5-6 statute miles per minute. In this case particularly (low-contrast, small head-on cross-section, potential for evasion maneuvers to make things worse with crossed wings) longer range situational awareness is critical to avoiding conflicts - often with a simple radio call to coordinate. Also a good reason to register with FarmNet - how many people really would be able to properly read and call out (or even recognize) an ICAO/Flarm ID in a time-constrained conflict situation? "AA8E2F, please turn right immediately!"
>
> 9B

I have also observed this situation many times in the Nephi OLC camps and contests. High closure rates and Configuring your PowerFlarm in the Stealth mode would make this situation a safety concern. It would limit the time to respond to a conflict situation. With the Stealth mode off these situation are visible for many miles and evasive action is easy.

Stealth mode on this situation is much more immediate and dangerous with little time to identify, find and respond to the threat.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[email protected]

November 26th 15, 04:49 PM

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:29:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> If you fly with other gliders, especially cross-country FLARM is the way to go.
>
> I have had several alerts at high altitude and high speeds that I would have never seen the other gliders in time without FLARM.
>
> I flew US Nats in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Three mid-airs, one fatal. Since 2012 all nats have had mostly FLARM equipped gliders, no mid-airs. I would not race without FLARM now and all our local group uses FLARM.
>
> TT

I recall a mid air(fatal) at Uvalde, and one at Parowan. Where was the third/
There is an implied cause and effect that is partially true. To get a better sense of this implication, it would be worthwhile to look to the preceding periods of time. Data point- the last fatal mid air before Uvalde was in the mid 80's at Ephata during a 70 glider race that was winner take all for team selection.
Do not misinterpret my comment. I use Flarm, and was a very early adoptor, but get quite tired of the well meaning true zealots over selling to make their case.
UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 26th 15, 09:16 PM

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 8:49:15 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:29:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > If you fly with other gliders, especially cross-country FLARM is the way to go.
> >
> > I have had several alerts at high altitude and high speeds that I would have never seen the other gliders in time without FLARM.
> >
> > I flew US Nats in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Three mid-airs, one fatal. Since 2012 all nats have had mostly FLARM equipped gliders, no mid-airs. I would not race without FLARM now and all our local group uses FLARM.
> >
> > TT
>
> I recall a mid air(fatal) at Uvalde, and one at Parowan. Where was the third/
> There is an implied cause and effect that is partially true. To get a better sense of this implication, it would be worthwhile to look to the preceding periods of time. Data point- the last fatal mid air before Uvalde was in the mid 80's at Ephata during a 70 glider race that was winner take all for team selection.
> Do not misinterpret my comment. I use Flarm, and was a very early adoptor, but get quite tired of the well meaning true zealots over selling to make their case.
> UH

Here is the listing of all midairs for 1994-2013. There were 20 reported to FAA, so id doesn't include non-reported - which presumably would be more minor since they would unlikely include an insurance claim. It averages 1 per year. Uvalde had one fatal collision in 2010 and a non-fatal in 2012. There is some coding to show phase of flight and whether it was Glider-Glider, Glider-Towplane or Glider-GA as well as Takeoff, Landing or Mid-flight. Sorry for the poor formatting. A spreadsheet with all glider accidents in the US can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yx9bq_qivOzdo7BMqOQ3iJUvy7UoOul2hZIiMbiaav0/edit?usp=sharing

8/17/2012 Uvalde, TX SCHLEICHER ASG29-15M F-CIFB CEN12LA553A Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
8/17/2012 Uvalde, TX SCHLEICHER ASG29-15M D-6080 CEN12LA553B Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
6/7/2012 Sparks, NV SCHEMPP-HIRTH STANDARD CIRRUS N943SB WPR12LA250A Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
6/7/2012 Sparks, NV CENTRAIR C101A N101LV WPR12LA250B Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
8/4/2010 Batesville, TX ALEXANDER SCHLEICHER GMBH ASW 27-18 N8829A CEN10LA459B Fatal 1 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
8/4/2010 Batesville, TX SCHEMPP-HIRTH VENTUS-2B N7470C CEN10LA459A Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
6/15/2010 Parowan, UT SCHLEICHER ALEXANDER ASH 26 E N455S WPR10LA294A Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
6/15/2010 Parowan, UT SCHEMPP-HIRTH Ventus 2CT N514TW WPR10LA294A Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
2/6/2010 Boulder, CO SCHWEIZER SGS 2-32 N2472W CEN10FA115C Fatal 3 MIDFLT FLT MID TP-GA
11/28/2009 Middletown, CA SCHLEICHER ASW-27 N127AL WPR10FA068A Fatal 2 MIDLDG LDG MID G-TP
8/9/2008 Brackettville, TX Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2A N777UN DEN08LA137A Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
8/9/2008 Brackettville, TX AB Sportine Aviacija Genesis 2 N110RG DEN08LA137B Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
8/28/2006 Smith, NV Schleicher ASW27-18 N7729 LAX06FA277B Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-GA
4/1/2004 Oso, WA Glaser-Dirks DG-400 N400WJ SEA04LA063B Fatal 1 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
4/1/2004 Oso, WA Glasflugel STD Libelle 201B N161D SEA04LA063A Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-G
12/28/2003 Peoria, AZ Schleicher ASK-21 N274KS ANC04FA016B Fatal 4 MIDFLT FLT MID G-GA
5/1/1999 HILLTOWN, PA Burkhart Grob G-103 TWIN II N47938 IAD99FA041B Fatal 3 MIDFLT FLT MID G-TP
12/19/1998 OKEECHOBEE, FL Let L-13 N98KK MIA99LA051B Non-Fatal 0 MIDFLT FLT MID G-GA
6/29/1996 BOULDER, CO Burkhart Grob G103C TWIN III N103LM FTW96FA279B Fatal 2 MIDLDG LDG MID G-GA
5/8/1994 ELBERT, CO ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS-4 N4MN FTW94LA151 Non-Fatal 0 MIDLDG LDG MID G-TP

James Metcalfe

November 26th 15, 10:36 PM

At 21:29 25 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>I am curious about your experience with the interface. Did you just have
>the BF display, or was the Flarm also displaying targets on a moving
map?
>
>I have not had any Flarm warnings that would have saved a midair (3
years
>with it now). But I have always had Flarm targets displayed on the glide
>computer moving map, and so nearly always see them long before they
could be
>considered a threat. Two times in those three years I have gotten an
>unexpected warning, though not close enough to require action to avoid
collision.
>I use those events as a learning experience to see how I need to change
my
>scans and operations, so that they do not happen again.
>
>From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an
>potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential conflicts in

the
>first place than the actual warning facility.=20
>
>Countless times that Flarm has identified and displayed glider within a
km
>of me that I had not seen and might never have seen.

I have used only the 'butterfly' display. To be clear, of course I am
seeing target alerts all the time. That is not a problem, and even
occasionally interesting (such as when someone starts following).
The problem is with false collision warnings. Many pilots appear to (and
some of my pupils certainly do) find it almost impossible to resist turning

away from the Flarm direction of the 'threat', before they have seen the
target. That is dangerous, as I wrote in a post yesterday. And note that
the Flarm direction is often significantly different from the true
direction
(occasionally diametrically opposite), as it is track-based, not heading-
based.

I can see that my experience of Flarm in a very busy environment (the
French Alps) will be very different from that of those flying largely in
isolation (such as flatlands, particularly with what I would regard as high

cloudbases (I'm a Brit!))
J.

Tim Taylor

November 26th 15, 11:14 PM

UH,

I should have been clearer, these were contests I was personally flying in.

We had three years in a row at contests where I was flying. Uvalde, Parowan, and then Uvalde again. I was beginning to wonder if this was becoming the norm or I was just really bad luck and should stop going to contests.

I flew at Mifflin in 2012, which was the first US nationals where PowerFlarm was available for many contestants. We were installing them during the rain days as you remember. Every contest after that has seen an increase in the number of pilots with PowerFlarm and I have not had to personally listen to the radio calls of the aftermath of a midair. After the last one at Uvalde I never want to hear it again.

I hope that PowerFlarm is mandatory at all Nationals in the future.

Tim (TT)

Steve Koerner

November 27th 15, 12:43 AM

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> UH,
>
> I should have been clearer, these were contests I was personally flying in.
>
> We had three years in a row at contests where I was flying. Uvalde, Parowan, and then Uvalde again. I was beginning to wonder if this was becoming the norm or I was just really bad luck and should stop going to contests.
I was at all three of those contests that Tim mentions. Listening to the radio traffic was nothing compared to listening to the wail of the wife being informed at Uvalde. I went home straight away on the determination that I would never fly another contest day.

The adoption of PowerFlarm allowed me to change that determination.

Someone here just said that they're tired of listening to people oversell PowerFlarm. I say that's not possible.

I find myself quite irritated when there are still typically one or two folks that will show up at a given contest without a PowerFlarm and that they are permitted to fly.

jfitch

November 27th 15, 03:22 AM

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 21:29 25 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
> >I am curious about your experience with the interface. Did you just have
> >the BF display, or was the Flarm also displaying targets on a moving
> map?
> >
> >I have not had any Flarm warnings that would have saved a midair (3
> years
> >with it now). But I have always had Flarm targets displayed on the glide
> >computer moving map, and so nearly always see them long before they
> could be
> >considered a threat. Two times in those three years I have gotten an
> >unexpected warning, though not close enough to require action to avoid
> collision.
> >I use those events as a learning experience to see how I need to change
> my
> >scans and operations, so that they do not happen again.
> >
> >From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an
> >potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential conflicts in
>
> the
> >first place than the actual warning facility.=20
> >
> >Countless times that Flarm has identified and displayed glider within a
> km
> >of me that I had not seen and might never have seen.
>
> I have used only the 'butterfly' display. To be clear, of course I am
> seeing target alerts all the time. That is not a problem, and even
> occasionally interesting (such as when someone starts following).
> The problem is with false collision warnings. Many pilots appear to (and
> some of my pupils certainly do) find it almost impossible to resist turning
>
> away from the Flarm direction of the 'threat', before they have seen the
> target. That is dangerous, as I wrote in a post yesterday. And note that
> the Flarm direction is often significantly different from the true
> direction
> (occasionally diametrically opposite), as it is track-based, not heading-
> based.
>
> I can see that my experience of Flarm in a very busy environment (the
> French Alps) will be very different from that of those flying largely in
> isolation (such as flatlands, particularly with what I would regard as high
>
> cloudbases (I'm a Brit!))
> J.

James, if you are plagued by false alarms coming even from the wrong heading, I am all the more curious. I have not had any false alarms, perhaps some false negatives (probably should had been an alarm). Never from the wrong direction. Do you have the IGC files from a flight in which you remember that happening? It would be interesting to put it into SeeYou or other software (or even look at it in a text editor) to see what the accuracy of fix was. I have noticed that the Flarm GPS is typically reporting a larger error, and in some cases quite large. I'm not sure what the algorithms do with the precision of fix, but it seems like that is the most likely source of the errors you describe. For example the Flarm IGC file from my glider will show a typical precision of fix of around 3 - 4 meters, but sometimes it will go up to 30-40 for unknown reasons. The Air Avionics gps will show a precision of 1 - 2 meters on the same flight and might also go up in the same areas but not as much. Ridge flying in the Alps you might have the antenna shaded on one or more sides, which will increase the HDOP. The precision is the normally the last three digits of the B record in the IGC file. All of my flying is high altitude and with a clear view of the sky.

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 27th 15, 06:34 AM

I thought there were two posts worth repeating below and hope everyone takes an honest look. Steve's post was poignant. I did hear the contest committee will require Flarm in stealth mode at contests, if you have one.

Shouldn't preserving life be our highest goal, even more important than winning a contest or being annoyed by the theoretical possibility of someone leaching for a few thermals?

For the price of a parachute you can save two lives.

Steve Koerner wrote:

I was at all three of those contests that Tim mentions. Listening to the radio traffic was nothing compared to listening to the wail of the wife being informed at Uvalde. I went home straight away on the determination that I would never fly another contest day.

The adoption of PowerFlarm allowed me to change that determination.

Someone here just said that they're tired of listening to people oversell PowerFlarm. I say that's not possible.

I find myself quite irritated when there are still typically one or two folks that will show up at a given contest without a PowerFlarm and that they are permitted to fly.

Richard from craggyaero wrote:

I have also observed this situation many times in the Nephi OLC camps and contests. High closure rates and Configuring your PowerFlarm in the Stealth mode would make this situation a safety concern. It would limit the time to respond to a conflict situation. With the Stealth mode off these situation are visible for many miles and evasive action is easy.

Stealth mode on this situation is much more immediate and dangerous with little time to identify, find and respond to the threat.

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 4:44:04 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:

> I was at all three of those contests that Tim mentions. Listening to the radio traffic was nothing compared to listening to the wail of the wife being informed at Uvalde. I went home straight away on the determination that I would never fly another contest day.
>
> The adoption of PowerFlarm allowed me to change that determination.
>
> Someone here just said that they're tired of listening to people oversell PowerFlarm. I say that's not possible.
>
> I find myself quite irritated when there are still typically one or two folks that will show up at a given contest without a PowerFlarm and that they are permitted to fly.

[email protected]

November 27th 15, 08:40 AM

Re "alarms coming from the wrong direction". Flarm uses true tracks not headings. On ridges with a high crosswind component and low airspeed an alert being indicated as being straight ahead may be from 30 degrees or more offset with respect to one's own glider heading. This was highlighted in 2007 in our Scottish Gliding Centre trial and should be understood and allowed for by users. There is no practical technical way to avoid that - not until we all have electronic compasses out on our wingtips anyway.

David Salmon[_3_]

November 27th 15, 12:31 PM

What James may be referring to is the fact that Flarm indications are in
relation to your ground track not heading. The extreme example is if
flying in very strong winds, say in wave, and actually going backwards.
Another glider coming from your 6 o'clock will actually show as head on.
This effect is still there in any cross wind.
This is a fundamental flaw in Flarm, which surely could be much improved by
building in a wind algorithm to correct the indication nearer to heading.
All navigation programs have them.
Dave

At 03:22 27 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
>> At 21:29 25 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>> >I am curious about your experience with the interface. Did you just
have
>> >the BF display, or was the Flarm also displaying targets on a
moving=20
>> map?
>> >
>> >I have not had any Flarm warnings that would have saved a midair (3=20
>> years
>> >with it now). But I have always had Flarm targets displayed on the
glide
>> >computer moving map, and so nearly always see them long before they=20
>> could be
>> >considered a threat. Two times in those three years I have gotten an
>> >unexpected warning, though not close enough to require action to
avoid=
>=20
>> collision.
>> >I use those events as a learning experience to see how I need to
change=
>=20
>> my
>> >scans and operations, so that they do not happen again.
>> >
>> >From this I conclude that the situational awareness, far away from an
>> >potential conflict, is more valuable for preventing potential
conflicts
>=
>in
>>=20
>> the
>> >first place than the actual warning facility.=3D20
>> >
>> >Countless times that Flarm has identified and displayed glider within
a=
>=20
>> km
>> >of me that I had not seen and might never have seen.
>>=20
>> I have used only the 'butterfly' display. To be clear, of course I
am=20
>> seeing target alerts all the time. That is not a problem, and even=20
>> occasionally interesting (such as when someone starts following).
>> The problem is with false collision warnings. Many pilots appear to
(and=
>=20
>> some of my pupils certainly do) find it almost impossible to resist
>turni=
>ng
>>=20
>> away from the Flarm direction of the 'threat', before they have seen
the=
>=20
>> target. That is dangerous, as I wrote in a post yesterday. And note
that=
>=20
>> the Flarm direction is often significantly different from the true
>> direction=20
>> (occasionally diametrically opposite), as it is track-based, not
heading-
>> based.
>>=20
>> I can see that my experience of Flarm in a very busy environment
(the=20
>> French Alps) will be very different from that of those flying largely
in=
>=20
>> isolation (such as flatlands, particularly with what I would regard as
>hi=
>gh
>>=20
>> cloudbases (I'm a Brit!))
>> J.
>
>James, if you are plagued by false alarms coming even from the wrong
>headin=
>g, I am all the more curious. I have not had any false alarms, perhaps
>some=
> false negatives (probably should had been an alarm). Never from the
wrong
>=
>direction. Do you have the IGC files from a flight in which you remember
>th=
>at happening? It would be interesting to put it into SeeYou or other
>softw=
>are (or even look at it in a text editor) to see what the accuracy of fix
>w=
>as. I have noticed that the Flarm GPS is typically reporting a larger
>error=
>, and in some cases quite large. I'm not sure what the algorithms do with
>t=
>he precision of fix, but it seems like that is the most likely source of
>th=
>e errors you describe. For example the Flarm IGC file from my glider will
>s=
>how a typical precision of fix of around 3 - 4 meters, but sometimes it
>wil=
>l go up to 30-40 for unknown reasons. The Air Avionics gps will show a
>prec=
>ision of 1 - 2 meters on the same flight and might also go up in the same
>a=
>reas but not as much. Ridge flying in the Alps you might have the antenna
>s=
>haded on one or more sides, which will increase the HDOP. The precision
is
>=
>the normally the last three digits of the B record in the IGC file. All
of
>=
>my flying is high altitude and with a clear view of the sky.
>

[email protected]

November 27th 15, 01:30 PM

"This is a fundamental flaw in Flarm, which surely could be much improved by
building in a wind algorithm to correct the indication nearer to heading.
All navigation programs have them."

As another poster mentioned, you really need a heading input to achieve this. Whilst PNA's use drift while circling amongst other methods to determine the wind, they require frequent & sustained 'circles' to achieve this - not so good for wave & ridge. LX quote 3 circles from memory and all the operating notes warn of the associated unreliability. An attempt to use an algorithm to achieve this in Flarm would result in large variations in accuracy. Sometimes the relative bearings provided would be correct and sometimes, they wouldn't. Though currently an imperfect system, at least it's consistent.

CJ

David Salmon[_3_]

November 27th 15, 03:37 PM

David Salmon[_3_]

November 27th 15, 03:38 PM

David Salmon[_3_]

November 27th 15, 03:59 PM

At 13:30 27 November 2015, wrote:
>"This is a fundamental flaw in Flarm, which surely could be much improved
>b=
>y=20
>building in a wind algorithm to correct the indication nearer to
heading.=
>=20
>All navigation programs have them."
>
>As another poster mentioned, you really need a heading input to achieve
>thi=
>s. Whilst PNA's use drift while circling amongst other methods to
>determin=
>e the wind, they require frequent & sustained 'circles' to achieve this -
>n=
>ot so good for wave & ridge. LX quote 3 circles from memory and all the
>op=
>erating notes warn of the associated unreliability. An attempt to use an
>a=
>lgorithm to achieve this in Flarm would result in large variations in
>accur=
>acy. Sometimes the relative bearings provided would be correct and
>sometim=
>es, they wouldn't. Though currently an imperfect system, at least it's
>con=
>sistent.
>
>CJ
>
I only mentioned wave to illustrate the extreme example. Some error is
always there unless you are flying straight up or down wind. It is far
from consistent, the amount depends on the wind speed and your angle to it,
two variables.
So whats wrong with flying 2/3 circles, I often circle in wave. In any case
Paolo Ventrafridda developed a method for LK8000, of flying S & L on one of
several headings for say 10 secs at a constant airspeed.
If the will is there, it can be done, and even if slightly imperfect, it
would be better than the present almost always wrong indication.
However another approach would be a way of manually putting the wind into
Flarm, using the vario/navigator readout, which I'm sure everyone flying
with Flarm, is equipped with as well.
Dave

jfitch

November 27th 15, 05:31 PM

James mentioned false alarms while diametrically opposed in thermals. That is highly unlikely to be due to wind drift.

[email protected]

November 27th 15, 05:32 PM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:00:05 PM UTC, David Salmon wrote:
> At 13:30 27 November 2015, wrote:
> >"This is a fundamental flaw in Flarm, which surely could be much improved
> >b=
> >y=20
> >building in a wind algorithm to correct the indication nearer to
> heading.=
> >=20
> >All navigation programs have them."
> >
> >As another poster mentioned, you really need a heading input to achieve
> >thi=
> >s. Whilst PNA's use drift while circling amongst other methods to
> >determin=
> >e the wind, they require frequent & sustained 'circles' to achieve this -
> >n=
> >ot so good for wave & ridge. LX quote 3 circles from memory and all the
> >op=
> >erating notes warn of the associated unreliability. An attempt to use an
> >a=
> >lgorithm to achieve this in Flarm would result in large variations in
> >accur=
> >acy. Sometimes the relative bearings provided would be correct and
> >sometim=
> >es, they wouldn't. Though currently an imperfect system, at least it's
> >con=
> >sistent.
> >
> >CJ
> >
> I only mentioned wave to illustrate the extreme example. Some error is
> always there unless you are flying straight up or down wind. It is far
> from consistent, the amount depends on the wind speed and your angle to it,
> two variables.
> So whats wrong with flying 2/3 circles, I often circle in wave. In any case
> Paolo Ventrafridda developed a method for LK8000, of flying S & L on one of
> several headings for say 10 secs at a constant airspeed.
> If the will is there, it can be done, and even if slightly imperfect, it
> would be better than the present almost always wrong indication.
> However another approach would be a way of manually putting the wind into
> Flarm, using the vario/navigator readout, which I'm sure everyone flying
> with Flarm, is equipped with as well.
> Dave

My colleague corresponded with Flarm during our Scottish trial in 2007 about the possibility of correcting the track/heading difference by wind estimates from circling and they said they would look it it but never introduced it. One of the obvious issues is that the modes of flight during which this difference is most obvious (ridge and wave) are less likely to entail a lot of circling. Also in mountain ridge flying we are more likely to experience varying local winds.

I think that trying to do this would introduce too many uncertainties and different calculations between gliders.

Even without Flarm a pilot who can't figure out his track versus heading when ridge flying would be looking out the window in the wrong place for conflicting gliders.

John Galloway

Jim White[_3_]

November 27th 15, 05:36 PM

At 06:34 27 November 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>I thought there were two posts worth repeating below and hope everyone
>take=
>s an honest look. Steve's post was poignant. I did hear the contest
>committ=
>ee will require Flarm in stealth mode at contests, if you have one.
>
>Shouldn't preserving life be our highest goal, even more important than
>win=
>ning a contest or being annoyed by the theoretical possibility of someone
>l=
>eaching for a few thermals? =20
>
This has been done over a thousand times. If you want a super safe
competition don't leave the ground.

Competition in gliders is inherently dangerous. But, Flarm or not, it is
not probable that you will have a fatal accident. Competition pilots weigh
up risk all the time and understand that by taking part they are taking a
risk.

The risk is small and made smaller by the use of Flarm. We should not avoid
risk as our highest goal. We should aim to collectively enjoy the sport
with an appropriate level of risk - mitigated by Flarm.

I believe Flarm should be mandated in competition and also believe it
should be used in stealth mode to allow handling and soaring skill to be
more relevant than radar reading and tactical flying.

Jim

Dan Daly[_2_]

November 27th 15, 05:51 PM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 12:32:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 4:00:05 PM UTC, David Salmon wrote:
> > At 13:30 27 November 2015, wrote:
> > >"This is a fundamental flaw in Flarm, which surely could be much improved
> > >b=
> > >y=20
> > >building in a wind algorithm to correct the indication nearer to
> > heading.=
> > >=20
> > >All navigation programs have them."
> > >
> > >As another poster mentioned, you really need a heading input to achieve
> > >thi=
> > >s. Whilst PNA's use drift while circling amongst other methods to
> > >determin=
> > >e the wind, they require frequent & sustained 'circles' to achieve this -
> > >n=
> > >ot so good for wave & ridge. LX quote 3 circles from memory and all the
> > >op=
> > >erating notes warn of the associated unreliability. An attempt to use an
> > >a=
> > >lgorithm to achieve this in Flarm would result in large variations in
> > >accur=
> > >acy. Sometimes the relative bearings provided would be correct and
> > >sometim=
> > >es, they wouldn't. Though currently an imperfect system, at least it's
> > >con=
> > >sistent.
> > >
> > >CJ
> > >
> > I only mentioned wave to illustrate the extreme example. Some error is
> > always there unless you are flying straight up or down wind. It is far
> > from consistent, the amount depends on the wind speed and your angle to it,
> > two variables.
> > So whats wrong with flying 2/3 circles, I often circle in wave. In any case
> > Paolo Ventrafridda developed a method for LK8000, of flying S & L on one of
> > several headings for say 10 secs at a constant airspeed.
> > If the will is there, it can be done, and even if slightly imperfect, it
> > would be better than the present almost always wrong indication.
> > However another approach would be a way of manually putting the wind into
> > Flarm, using the vario/navigator readout, which I'm sure everyone flying
> > with Flarm, is equipped with as well.
> > Dave
>
> My colleague corresponded with Flarm during our Scottish trial in 2007 about the possibility of correcting the track/heading difference by wind estimates from circling and they said they would look it it but never introduced it. One of the obvious issues is that the modes of flight during which this difference is most obvious (ridge and wave) are less likely to entail a lot of circling. Also in mountain ridge flying we are more likely to experience varying local winds.
>
> I think that trying to do this would introduce too many uncertainties and different calculations between gliders.
>
> Even without Flarm a pilot who can't figure out his track versus heading when ridge flying would be looking out the window in the wrong place for conflicting gliders.
>
> John Galloway

From the flarm.com press release of 2015-01-28, in part: "...It includes safety features that increase the effectiveness and robustness of collision warnings, further decreasing nuisance alarms, for example by taking into account wind."

It also talks about the FLARM TrackingServer release "...in spring 2015...", which as far as I can tell, didn't happen.

It would be helpful if someone from FLARM could comment on how the wind is taken into account, and the status of the TrackingServer. I note it would be convenient if they had a forum/bulletin board where customers of their expensive and complex products could interact with them and each other.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

November 27th 15, 07:13 PM

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:31:17 -0800, jfitch wrote:

> James mentioned false alarms while diametrically opposed in thermals.
> That is highly unlikely to be due to wind drift.

.... which is something I've never experienced, but maybe I've never
shared a thermal with an idiot since I've had FLARM fitted. That said, at
my club there was one collision in a thermal between two FLARM-equipped
gliders. AFAICT from talking to the pilots, one of them was far from
being on the diametrically opposite side of the thermal and then misread
the intentions of the other pilot. Under these conditions FLARM won't
help because the time between its warning being triggered and the
collision is likely to be too short for either pilot to do anything about
it.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

jfitch

November 27th 15, 07:27 PM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-8, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:31:17 -0800, jfitch wrote:
>
> > James mentioned false alarms while diametrically opposed in thermals.
> > That is highly unlikely to be due to wind drift.
>
> ... which is something I've never experienced, but maybe I've never
> shared a thermal with an idiot since I've had FLARM fitted. That said, at
> my club there was one collision in a thermal between two FLARM-equipped
> gliders. AFAICT from talking to the pilots, one of them was far from
> being on the diametrically opposite side of the thermal and then misread
> the intentions of the other pilot. Under these conditions FLARM won't
> help because the time between its warning being triggered and the
> collision is likely to be too short for either pilot to do anything about
> it.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

The short warning you get in thermals is a limitation of Flarm. Mitigated by a very good tactical screen of which there are unfortunately few examples.. One of the compromises that appear to have been made to eliminate false alarms in thermals is a very short warning distance. I have flown close to other gliders in thermals (yes they were aware) to see just when the alarms occur. I'm not criticizing Flarm for this, something I think they had to do.. Too many extraneous alarms is as bad as no alarms at all.

On a good tactical screen (the original Winpilot remains the very best by a wide margin) gives you a 3D map of all the gliders in the thermal near your altitude. Very easy at a glance to see where everyone is. I do not know of another display with this capability but I found it very informative. Unfortunately the original Winpilot doesn't work with modern equipment anymore, so the facility has been lost.

November 27th 15, 07:57 PM

I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.

1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.

and

2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.

First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.

The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.

The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.

Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.

High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.

So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.

XC

[email protected]

November 27th 15, 08:49 PM

"The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU. "

Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100 knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
>
> 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
>
> and
>
> 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
>
>
> First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
>
> The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
>
> The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
>
> Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
>
> High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout.. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
>
> So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
>
> XC

Tango Eight

November 27th 15, 09:55 PM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:49:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100 knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.

What is it that you think is going to go wrong in stealth mode? My reading of flarm's docs says alerts will be delivered normally, i.e. first warning about 25 seconds before closest approach.

T8

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 27th 15, 10:06 PM

With all due respect, it should go without saying that if you are going to quote someone, do not later paraphrase with a completely new meaning!!!! What I said is "shouldn't preserving life be our highest goal". I did not say nor did I mean what you later paraphrased as "We should not avoid risk as our highest goal". Those are your words intentional miscontrueing plain simple English that I clearly communicated to anyone with a fourth grade education! Thank you very much.

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> At 06:34 27 November 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> >Shouldn't preserving life be our highest goal, even more important than
> >win=
> >ning a contest or being annoyed by the theoretical possibility of someone
> >l=
> >eaching for a few thermals? =20
> >
>..Jim White wrote:
>
> ...Competition in gliders is inherently dangerous. But, Flarm or not, it is
> not probable that you will have a fatal accident. Competition pilots weigh
> up risk all the time and understand that by taking part they are taking a
> risk.
>
> The risk is small and made smaller by the use of Flarm. We should not avoid
> risk as our highest goal. We should aim to collectively enjoy the sport
> with an appropriate level of risk - mitigated by Flarm....
>

> Jim

November 27th 15, 10:06 PM

Once again I'll say - That is not the way it works. The 2 km does not apply to an aircraft determined to be a threat. In the case stated above the alarm and display would go off at x secs regardless of the distance. I am not sure what the number of seconds is but it is based on a safe reaction time. The warning would be limited by the reception range of the FLARM set up and any limitations the pilot has set in $PFLAU portion of the configuration file. This would be true stealth or not. The specifics of how the threat is painted and the audio warning is left to manufacturer of the display device.

Proximate aircraft which are not a threat are only displayed if they are within 2 km and +/- 300 m, etc.

XC

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

November 27th 15, 10:10 PM

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:49:50 -0800, ucanemailmoi wrote:

> Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100
> knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100
> knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph,
> covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.
>
I think its a bit longer than that.

A closing speed of 496 kph is 138 m/s, so it will take 14.5 seconds
between first warning at 2km separation to the collision if nobody takes
avoiding action.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

November 27th 15, 10:27 PM

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:27:06 -0800, jfitch wrote:

> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-8, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:31:17 -0800, jfitch wrote:
>>
>> > James mentioned false alarms while diametrically opposed in thermals.
>> > That is highly unlikely to be due to wind drift.
>>
>> ... which is something I've never experienced, but maybe I've never
>> shared a thermal with an idiot since I've had FLARM fitted. That said,
>> at my club there was one collision in a thermal between two
>> FLARM-equipped gliders. AFAICT from talking to the pilots, one of them
>> was far from being on the diametrically opposite side of the thermal
>> and then misread the intentions of the other pilot. Under these
>> conditions FLARM won't help because the time between its warning being
>> triggered and the collision is likely to be too short for either pilot
>> to do anything about it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
>
> The short warning you get in thermals is a limitation of Flarm.
> Mitigated by a very good tactical screen of which there are
> unfortunately few examples. One of the compromises that appear to have
> been made to eliminate false alarms in thermals is a very short warning
> distance. I have flown close to other gliders in thermals (yes they were
> aware) to see just when the alarms occur. I'm not criticizing Flarm for
> this, something I think they had to do. Too many extraneous alarms is as
> bad as no alarms at all.
>
Yes - agreed. I wasn't criticising FLARM at all for this. IMO the reality
of thermal gaggles is that everybody *must* maintain situational
awareness in a multiply occupied thermal. Thinking about it a bit
further, if everybody at more or less the same height in a thermal flies
sensibly, the time to go from safe to collision takes enough time to make
avoidance fairly easy. It would take at least one pilot to be grossly out
of position to make a collision imminent (think leaving by blasting
across the centre or getting too close behind or below another glider).
FLARM will spot a dangerous joining manoeuvre but whether the warning
would do you any good may depend on where the other glider(s) in the
thermal are, i.e. do you have an escape route that doesn't endanger
anybody else.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Mark628CA

November 27th 15, 10:29 PM

From a previous post:

"Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying."

Uh- I don't think so. 2 m in .25 sec = 8 km/sec = 480 km/min = 28,800 km/hr = 17,856 mph = orbital velocity.

Obviously not a script writer for "The Martian."

"Interstellar," maybe.

jfitch

November 28th 15, 12:30 AM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
>
> 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
>
> and
>
> 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
>
>
> First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
>
> The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
>
> The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
>
> Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
>
> High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout.. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
>
> So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
>
> XC

Yet peculiarly in the pilots poll, twice as many pilots said non-stealth Flarm enhanced enjoyment of a contest, as wanted it mandatory. In nationals 30% wanted mandatory stealth, in regionals 20%. Yet 40% said keeping track of the other gliders through non-stealth flarm enhanced their enjoyment of the contest. Looking at all of the responses to those three questions one can only conclude that a significant number of pilots do not want to enjoy contests. Maybe that's why participation is declining?

Mark628CA

November 28th 15, 01:26 AM

Oops!

Make the first line read "2 KM in .25 sec"

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 01:44 AM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:07:01 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> Once again I'll say - That is not the way it works. The 2 km does not apply to an aircraft determined to be a threat. In the case stated above the alarm and display would go off at x secs regardless of the distance. I am not sure what the number of seconds is but it is based on a safe reaction time. The warning would be limited by the reception range of the FLARM set up and any limitations the pilot has set in $PFLAU portion of the configuration file. This would be true stealth or not. The specifics of how the threat is painted and the audio warning is left to manufacturer of the display device.
>
> Proximate aircraft which are not a threat are only displayed if they are within 2 km and +/- 300 m, etc.
>
> XC

I don't think that's the issue people are raising. The only way you get a warning from Flarm is if the glider is on an intersecting track within a fairly narrow "uncertainty cone". It is only valid over any distance for gliders that don't maneuver. As we all know that is rarely the case - glider maneuver all the time.

The issue is that a glider that hooks a turnpoint or leaves a thermal or otherwise changes course can go from being invisible to a threat at a distance that is roughly 10-15 seconds away from impact.

The RC is aware of this shortcoming and is engaging with the IGC and Flarm to ensure that course changes cannot generate surprise threats without proper IDs (remember, a radio call to a known Contest ID to coordinate evasive action is the best practice in head-to-head scenarios). It is particularly an issue for high-altitude, high speed street flying that is common in the US west and other places where converging speeds can top 350 MPH. At 2km for Flarm stealth mode this is a 12 seconds of warning. Most pilots who fly under these conditions use longer range situational awareness to avoid conflicts rather than having to react with very little time to: 1) identify and orient the threat, 2) determine the best course of action, 3) raise the other glider on the radio by Contest Number - or worse, Flarm ID (who memorizes theirs?), 4) coordinate an evasive maneuver that isn't "you zig, I zag". Ask the guys that fly the convergence and strong streets out west all the time. Less than a minute to do all that concerns them - deeply. I asked them and got their feedback.

Also, I don't think if you ask the guys in the middle of the scoresheet they'd be super wild about deliberately creating more landouts (and everything that goes with that in terms of hassle and the odd insurance claim) out of some sense that missing a thermal on a random glide that someone who flew 1/16 of a mile to the east stumbled into for a save somehow is more valid. Mostly we devalue contests with landouts because we think landouts are an indicator of less valid conditions. In fact we polled people and they said what they think.

But that's another discussion about philosophy. :-)

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 01:47 AM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-8, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:49:50 -0800, ucanemailmoi wrote:
>
> > Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100
> > knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100
> > knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph,
> > covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.
> >
> I think its a bit longer than that.
>
> A closing speed of 496 kph is 138 m/s, so it will take 14.5 seconds
> between first warning at 2km separation to the collision if nobody takes
> avoiding action.
>

LOL. I think he meant 1/4 minute. At 110 kts at 17,500 and 40 deg F it's closer to 1/6 of a minute.

9B

November 28th 15, 02:43 AM

The case that folks are making regarding high converging speeds are in clouds streets, wave and ridge lift. Theses are predictable situations that are easily handled by the FLARM algorithm. In the worse case scenario, 10-15 seconds is plenty of time to alter course to avoid a mid-air

The argument that a radio call to a known ID is the best course of action is false. The best way to avoid a mid-air is to turn to avoid the danger using predetermined right-of-way rules, not to establish radio communication and coordinate a plan.

Lastly, good glider pilots don't stumble into saves. They know where the lift is likely to be. They manage risk to get there with altitude to use it and have a back up plan. Some people are good at this and others are not as good. The score sheet should reflect this fact. The rules should ensure the integrity of the sport and keep it the adventure it was always supposed to be - not water it down. You'd attract a lot more people to the sport by having soaring heroes like we used to have rather than trying to placate everyone's desire to make it home for dinner.

XC

> I don't think that's the issue people are raising. The only way you get a warning from Flarm is if the glider is on an intersecting track within a fairly narrow "uncertainty cone". It is only valid over any distance for gliders that don't maneuver. As we all know that is rarely the case - glider maneuver all the time.
>
> The issue is that a glider that hooks a turnpoint or leaves a thermal or otherwise changes course can go from being invisible to a threat at a distance that is roughly 10-15 seconds away from impact.
>
> The RC is aware of this shortcoming and is engaging with the IGC and Flarm to ensure that course changes cannot generate surprise threats without proper IDs (remember, a radio call to a known Contest ID to coordinate evasive action is the best practice in head-to-head scenarios). It is particularly an issue for high-altitude, high speed street flying that is common in the US west and other places where converging speeds can top 350 MPH. At 2km for Flarm stealth mode this is a 12 seconds of warning. Most pilots who fly under these conditions use longer range situational awareness to avoid conflicts rather than having to react with very little time to: 1) identify and orient the threat, 2) determine the best course of action, 3) raise the other glider on the radio by Contest Number - or worse, Flarm ID (who memorizes theirs?), 4) coordinate an evasive maneuver that isn't "you zig, I zag".. Ask the guys that fly the convergence and strong streets out west all the time. Less than a minute to do all that concerns them - deeply. I asked them and got their feedback.
>
> Also, I don't think if you ask the guys in the middle of the scoresheet they'd be super wild about deliberately creating more landouts (and everything that goes with that in terms of hassle and the odd insurance claim) out of some sense that missing a thermal on a random glide that someone who flew 1/16 of a mile to the east stumbled into for a save somehow is more valid.. Mostly we devalue contests with landouts because we think landouts are an indicator of less valid conditions. In fact we polled people and they said what they think.
>
> But that's another discussion about philosophy. :-)
>
> 9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 03:13 AM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:43:55 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> The case that folks are making regarding high converging speeds are in clouds streets, wave and ridge lift. Theses are predictable situations that are easily handled by the FLARM algorithm. In the worse case scenario, 10-15 seconds is plenty of time to alter course to avoid a mid-air

Disagree - totally - this is inconsistent with experience.
>
> The argument that a radio call to a known ID is the best course of action is false. The best way to avoid a mid-air is to turn to avoid the danger using predetermined right-of-way rules, not to establish radio communication and coordinate a plan.
>
Ask anyone who it has happened to. "XC please turn right" beats guessing which way you are going to go and even the Flarm guys recommend strongly agains making an impulsive turn because even if both glider guess to turn away from each other it turns their wings into a perfect "X". Not good.

> Lastly, good glider pilots don't stumble into saves. They know where the lift is likely to be. They manage risk to get there with altitude to use it and have a back up plan. Some people are good at this and others are not as good. The score sheet should reflect this fact. The rules should ensure the integrity of the sport and keep it the adventure it was always supposed to be - not water it down. You'd attract a lot more people to the sport by having soaring heroes like we used to have rather than trying to placate everyone's desire to make it home for dinner.

This is folklore - if you really believed that we should devalue speed days and not devalue days where one "hero" gets around and everyone else lands out - yet we do the opposite. Look at Elmira - many of the top PRL guys got knocked out on the landout days. I'd say bunk to the contention that superior skill has very much to do with it above a certain level of experience.

9B

Tim Taylor

November 28th 15, 04:32 AM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:43:55 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> The case that folks are making regarding high converging speeds are in clouds streets, wave and ridge lift. Theses are predictable situations that are easily handled by the FLARM algorithm. In the worse case scenario, 10-15 seconds is plenty of time to alter course to avoid a mid-air
>
> The argument that a radio call to a known ID is the best course of action is false. The best way to avoid a mid-air is to turn to avoid the danger using predetermined right-of-way rules, not to establish radio communication and coordinate a plan.
>
> Lastly, good glider pilots don't stumble into saves. They know where the lift is likely to be. They manage risk to get there with altitude to use it and have a back up plan. Some people are good at this and others are not as good. The score sheet should reflect this fact. The rules should ensure the integrity of the sport and keep it the adventure it was always supposed to be - not water it down. You'd attract a lot more people to the sport by having soaring heroes like we used to have rather than trying to placate everyone's desire to make it home for dinner.
>
> XC

Sean,

I have seen several days at Nephi in the last two years plus many days at Parowan and Uvalde where 15 to 20 seconds is marginal for planning. While I really like Flarm, I also recognize that interpreting a warning and then deciding how to respond takes time and can be very disconcerting at high speeds. I am still not used to the fact that I have to pull my focus back in the cockpit just when I really need to be scanning for the traffic.

Two years ago on a contest day we had a single street the last few miles into and out of the first turnpoint. We were flying at over 110 knots indicated at about 13,000 feet. I was flying with IRS (Mark) on my right wing and fortunately we had about five miles Flarm range because we were head-on and same altitude with 9B (Andy) and ZL (Dave) running at the same speed in the opposite direction. Andy and I were coordinating from about 4 miles apart to maintain separation but I still never saw ZL when the two passed. Andy went between Mark and me both horizontally and vertically with only a hundred feet vertical separation (I show IRS and 9B as close as 4 feet vertically as we passed). It would be easy to turn to avoid one warning only to cross the path of a second glider if you did not know they were coming.

I don't have a perfect answer on the stealth versus not discussion. I understand that non-stealth changes the game dramatically but I also like having more warning time to prepare for meeting other gliders when we are closing at 250 mph. I am not ready to make stealth required at all contests until we have some experience with it under western conditions.

Tim

[email protected]

November 28th 15, 04:41 AM

My math is correct, my typing was not: 1/4 of a minute warning! That is actually not much time to be alerted, accept the alert, come up with a plan of action and react. This is why it is better to have Flarm set you can see the gliders coming your way, while there is enough to plan not just react. Western flying at speed and altitude under mountain generated clouds streets is different than eastern flying, and requires its own set of safety parameters and flying style. Not every peg fits in every hole.

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 12:49:53 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> "The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU. "
>
> Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100 knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
> >
> > 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
> >
> >
> > First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
> >
> > The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
> >
> > The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
> >
> > Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
> >
> > High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
> >
> > So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
> >
> > XC

[email protected]

November 28th 15, 09:35 AM

1/4 minute is ample time - that is about when Flarm issues its first acoustic collision alert. I have participated in several head on collision scenarios during a Flarm trial. Even waiting until the third level of Flarm alarm before reacting all that is required is a gentle change of direction a few degrees. The key thing is that Flarm has alerted you to visually acquire the potential threat that you might not otherwise have done.

BTW my strong belief is the the first response to a Flarm acoustic alert should be to look along track, to see a possible head on threat, before looking at the visual display. Head on threats are the most high energy.

There is far too much concentration on Flarm visual displays (eyes down) instead of the acoustic alert (eyes outside).

[email protected]

November 28th 15, 01:12 PM

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:32:31 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:43:55 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> > The case that folks are making regarding high converging speeds are in clouds streets, wave and ridge lift. Theses are predictable situations that are easily handled by the FLARM algorithm. In the worse case scenario, 10-15 seconds is plenty of time to alter course to avoid a mid-air
> >
> > The argument that a radio call to a known ID is the best course of action is false. The best way to avoid a mid-air is to turn to avoid the danger using predetermined right-of-way rules, not to establish radio communication and coordinate a plan.
> >
> > Lastly, good glider pilots don't stumble into saves. They know where the lift is likely to be. They manage risk to get there with altitude to use it and have a back up plan. Some people are good at this and others are not as good. The score sheet should reflect this fact. The rules should ensure the integrity of the sport and keep it the adventure it was always supposed to be - not water it down. You'd attract a lot more people to the sport by having soaring heroes like we used to have rather than trying to placate everyone's desire to make it home for dinner.
> >
> > XC
>
> Sean,
>
> I have seen several days at Nephi in the last two years plus many days at Parowan and Uvalde where 15 to 20 seconds is marginal for planning. While I really like Flarm, I also recognize that interpreting a warning and then deciding how to respond takes time and can be very disconcerting at high speeds. I am still not used to the fact that I have to pull my focus back in the cockpit just when I really need to be scanning for the traffic.
>
> Two years ago on a contest day we had a single street the last few miles into and out of the first turnpoint. We were flying at over 110 knots indicated at about 13,000 feet. I was flying with IRS (Mark) on my right wing and fortunately we had about five miles Flarm range because we were head-on and same altitude with 9B (Andy) and ZL (Dave) running at the same speed in the opposite direction. Andy and I were coordinating from about 4 miles apart to maintain separation but I still never saw ZL when the two passed. Andy went between Mark and me both horizontally and vertically with only a hundred feet vertical separation (I show IRS and 9B as close as 4 feet vertically as we passed). It would be easy to turn to avoid one warning only to cross the path of a second glider if you did not know they were coming.
>
>
> I don't have a perfect answer on the stealth versus not discussion. I understand that non-stealth changes the game dramatically but I also like having more warning time to prepare for meeting other gliders when we are closing at 250 mph. I am not ready to make stealth required at all contests until we have some experience with it under western conditions.
>
> Tim

I sounds like coordination between gliders has limited usefulness. It involves several extra steps, heads down time, plus everyone has to be working together. I agree with the fellow who said audio warning plus eyes outside is the best way to go.

Have you tried stealth mode in a contest? It works well. Try it and I think you find it is fine.

Perhaps a better path for you and Andy would be to get involved in the ongoing discussion about the best range to show proximate traffic in competition (stealth) mode. (Remember intruder traffic is displayed at any range the FLARM set up can detect). Perhaps the range should be configurable to show proximate traffic farther away in western contests. The algorithm could also be modified to identify more threats. These are all possibilities. I still see no need to display contest ID, climb rate, i.e. all the competitive stuff. Relative altitude is displayed.

Also, I think we can agree a few degrees of bank is all that is need to avoid traffic at 110 kts.

XC

Mike the Strike

November 28th 15, 02:36 PM

I have some experience of head-on meetings under cloud streets and narrowly avoided a couple of collisions in my pre-Flarm days. Closing speeds are impressively high and the interval between seeing a glider head-on and avoiding it impressively short. Fifteen seconds warning is almost certain to be a lot better than you have visually.

However, I cannot understand how anyone believes that reducing the amount of information on glider positions by using stealth mode does anything other than reduce safety. I believe the concern over leeching is seriously misplaced.

Mike

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

November 28th 15, 02:51 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 9:36:31 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> I have some experience of head-on meetings under cloud streets and narrowly avoided a couple of collisions in my pre-Flarm days. Closing speeds are impressively high and the interval between seeing a glider head-on and avoiding it impressively short. Fifteen seconds warning is almost certain to be a lot better than you have visually.
>
> However, I cannot understand how anyone believes that reducing the amount of information on glider positions by using stealth mode does anything other than reduce safety. I believe the concern over leeching is seriously misplaced.
>
> Mike

An issue with this argument is the assumption that integrating an in-cockpit display into ones awareness has no cost. I believe this is a fallacy. Anything that directs your attention inside the glider potentially adversely affects safety. Folks are making the "situational awareness" argument with the premise that sll objects you need to be aware of are FLARM equipped and that all FLARMs are operating correctly.

WRT thermals, one prior poster observed that Winpilot is excellent for displaying gliders in a thermal. The idea of someone in a thermal not looking out the window 100% of the time is troubling to me. There have been at least two instances I am personally aware of where FLARM equipped gliders have collided in a thermal.

QT

[email protected]

November 28th 15, 03:15 PM

"So whats wrong with flying 2/3 circles, I often circle in wave. In any case
Paolo Ventrafridda developed a method for LK8000, of flying S & L on one of
several headings for say 10 secs at a constant airspeed.
If the will is there, it can be done, and even if slightly imperfect, it
would be better than the present almost always wrong indication.
However another approach would be a way of manually putting the wind into
Flarm, using the vario/navigator readout, which I'm sure everyone flying
with Flarm, is equipped with as well. "

Nothing wrong with circling, but pilots aren't going to stop and circle just to improve the accuracy of their wind calculation. It comes down the to quality of the data being fed to the device. Whether derived internally or fed from an external source (such as the PNA's you suggest), unless it's always accurate it, it's going to result in inaccurate relative bearing information. To the best of my knowledge, Flarm presently resolves traffic warnings as a relative bearing based on *track*. It may not always be accurate with regards to *heading* but at least it's consistent and thus can be allowed for by the pilot. The only time things go to pot is when roughly holding position in wave. If Flarm was alternating between heading and track based relative bearings, based on the accuracy of the wind solution at the time, you'd never know where to look.

CJ

John Carlyle

November 28th 15, 03:49 PM

Sean, you say you're against using Flarm in non-stealth mode because "it leads to an invalid score sheet", essentially arguing that mediocre pilots could use Flarm for electronic leeching.

You've been a superior contest pilot for long enough that I think you're forgetting (1) the intensive learning that happens during contests by mediocre pilots and (2) just why those mediocre pilots are at the contest. They're at the contest because they're trying to become better pilots, and they learn that by observing what superior pilots are doing.

I submit that Flarm, in addition to being a safety device, offers a superior method for observing where other gliders are located, allowing a mediocre pilot to learn better how to read the sky and terrain. It's possible that some could use Flarm for leeching, but that behavior would show up in the IGC files and could be easily dealt with (with an unsporting conduct penalty).

-John, Q3

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:57:18 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
>
> 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
>
> and
>
> 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
>
>
> First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
>
> The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
>
> The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
>
> Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
>
> High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout.. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
>
> So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
>
> XC

Richard[_9_]

November 28th 15, 04:05 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:50:01 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
> Sean, you say you're against using Flarm in non-stealth mode because "it leads to an invalid score sheet", essentially arguing that mediocre pilots could use Flarm for electronic leeching.
>
> You've been a superior contest pilot for long enough that I think you're forgetting (1) the intensive learning that happens during contests by mediocre pilots and (2) just why those mediocre pilots are at the contest. They're at the contest because they're trying to become better pilots, and they learn that by observing what superior pilots are doing.
>
> I submit that Flarm, in addition to being a safety device, offers a superior method for observing where other gliders are located, allowing a mediocre pilot to learn better how to read the sky and terrain. It's possible that some could use Flarm for leeching, but that behavior would show up in the IGC files and could be easily dealt with (with an unsporting conduct penalty).
>
> -John, Q3
>
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:57:18 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> > I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
> >
> > 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
> >
> >
> > First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
> >
> > The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
> >
> > The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
> >
> > Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
> >
> > High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
> >
> > So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
> >
> > XC

John,

I agree, but! Why would we want to allow mediocre pilots to get a chance for all the woman and money?

This is a game for enjoyment and those that think differently are already racing very few like minded pilots.

Richard

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 28th 15, 04:06 PM

I am always perplexed by the argument that a device that gives you more situational awareness has a cost because you are not looking outside for one bloody second, rather looking inside at something that tells you what you have not been able to see by looking outside. Ever heard of synthetic vision? I have over two thousand hours flying much faster aircraft than gliders equipped with Mode S traffic position displays and/or TCAS. These amazing devices, yes including Flarm, are more about giving you the entire picture that you cannot see, so you can avoid the drama of extreme near misses or of the actual collision. A second looking at an instrument inside the cockpit can tell you more than you have seen with your scan the last 30 or more seconds.

I am not sure why the gliding community resists technology when we fly airfoils that are designed by some of the fastest computers on the planet. This debate is reminiscent of the GPS debate of 18 or so years ago. Looking back on that debate does anyone think the anti-GPS opinion was right or just plain silly. The head in the cockpit was used by the anti-GPS faction also.. Imagine taking photos of turn points. Think of the fancy new instruments we have that would not have been developed had the anti-GPS debate won.

Maybe the Amish have a gliding club with bungee cords, wood and fabric gliders and pellet varios.

No vitriol intended, just trying to make a point that seems so obvious to me and with my real world experience using traffic awareness technology. Again no offense intended to any parties including the anti-GPS faction who were so clearly wrong and short sighted :)

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 6:51:46 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

> An issue with this argument is the assumption that integrating an in-cockpit display into ones awareness has no cost. I believe this is a fallacy. Anything that directs your attention inside the glider potentially adversely affects safety. Folks are making the "situational awareness" argument with the premise that sll objects you need to be aware of are FLARM equipped and that all FLARMs are operating correctly.
>
> WRT thermals, one prior poster observed that Winpilot is excellent for displaying gliders in a thermal. The idea of someone in a thermal not looking out the window 100% of the time is troubling to me. There have been at least two instances I am personally aware of where FLARM equipped gliders have collided in a thermal.
>
> QT

Dan Marotta

November 28th 15, 04:14 PM

All this talk about speed and distance. Why not combine the two and
think in terms of time?

With a first warning at, say, 15 seconds, make a gentle turn according
to the right of way rules. What could be simpler? Why would you need
anything more complex? The algorithm will compute tracks and issue
warnings. Look outside, make a gentle turn, and enjoy the flight.
Talking about "crossed wings" clouds the issue under discussion. If you
make a small course correction at the initial collision warning, getting
that close won't happen. That's more of a thermalling thing, not a near
head-on approach. Worrying about someone getting a bit of a lead in a
contest at the risk of getting run over is, in a word, stupid.

Full disclosure: I do not use Flarm, but that's not to say that it's
not on my list of future upgrades.

On 11/27/2015 9:41 PM, wrote:
> My math is correct, my typing was not: 1/4 of a minute warning! That is actually not much time to be alerted, accept the alert, come up with a plan of action and react. This is why it is better to have Flarm set you can see the gliders coming your way, while there is enough to plan not just react. Western flying at speed and altitude under mountain generated clouds streets is different than eastern flying, and requires its own set of safety parameters and flying style. Not every peg fits in every hole.
>
>
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 12:49:53 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> "The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU."
>>
>> Imagine two gliders flying in Utah at the nationals at 17,000 feet 100 knots indicated under cloud street on opposite courses. Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>>> I am still seeing a lot of misinformation out there. I have two points to make supporting the use FLARM stealth mode in contests.
>>>
>>> 1) Stealth mode still allows the display and audio warning for threat aircraft no matter what the range.
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2) FLARM used without stealth mode leads to an invalid score sheet. This is more true in eastern U.S. or European contests with lower working bands and more potential landouts.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, I'd like folks to understand that FLARM sends two different messages to the display devices.
>>>
>>> The $PFLAU sentence has priority and contains info about intruder alerts and obstacles. The contest ID is removed in stealth mode. Alerts are unaffected no matter the range. It really works quite well with the algorithm the FLARM people have developed.
>>>
>>> The $PFLAA sentence is info about proximate aircraft displayed on your device. In stealth mode this info limited to aircraft within 2 km and +/- 300 meters vertically. Stealth or competition mode also removes ID, climb rate, track and speed from the display output for these proximate aircraft. It continues to use these variables to calculate the collision avoidance algorithm in $PFLAU.
>>>
>>> Folks should read FLARM release notes for FLARM 6.02 Firmware, FLARM data port specification TFD-12 and FTD-14 FLARM Configuration Specification for full understanding. Anyway, we found in Elmira last year it worked quite well and the contest was definitely still fun for all.
>>>
>>> High Western conditions versus lower Eastern (US) conditions: Without the use of stealth mode, in a contest with a lower working band, a pilot relying on FLARM technology can drive harder without fearing a landout, knowing there are gliders ahead to mark thermals. This does work in the east where thermals are closer together and you may be one thermal away from a landout. Even a mediocre pilot who might not even be able to get around the course by him/herself that day can use FLARM to pick the best thermals, found by others, and do fairly well on the score sheet. I agree in most cases this will not get a pilot the win. I do believe FLARM without stealth mode jumbles the middle of the score sheet and leads to an invalid result.
>>>
>>> So, do what you want when flying cross countries at home. However, I go to contests to see how I am stacking up against some great pilots. Stealth mode (soon to have more appropriate name) is the way to go here. It retains all the safety features it was designed to deliver, keeps your eyes outside of the cockpit where they should be and at the end of the contest period the score sheet shows which pilots have the best soaring skills.
>>>
>>> XC

--
Dan, 5J

November 28th 15, 04:51 PM

John and Richard,

I do remember my cross country skills improved greatly when I was mentored at home by W3. I quickly found that by following him around the course I stopped making my own decisions and I got nothing out of it. We then went to a system where we started together for fun, soon split off to follow our own decisions and raced around the course. Comparing my decisions to a seasoned pilot at the end of the day is very useful and much more gratifying.

I go to contests to do the same thing - put up my best effort against the other pilots at the contest and compare the results in the end. I enjoy this very much. I recommend flying your own flight to anyone who enjoys getting better.

XC

John Carlyle

November 28th 15, 04:52 PM

Richard,

Ah, yes, the women and the money - silly me! Or were you referring to the woman I annoy and the money I spend to attend contests?

-John, Q3

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
> John,
>
> I agree, but! Why would we want to allow mediocre pilots to get a chance for all the woman and money?
>
> This is a game for enjoyment and those that think differently are already racing very few like minded pilots.
>
> Richard

November 28th 15, 05:50 PM

John and Richard,

I do remember the days when I had no clue how to fly cross country. Luckily, I had an experienced pilot like W3 to fly with at the home base. I quickly realized that following him was no way to get better. Instead, we have gone to setting a task and starting together for fun. After a few clouds we end up making different decisions and splitting off. After racing around the course we compare results to see who did it better and how. This is really fun and much more gratifying.

I go to contests to do the same thing. I put up my best effort and compare it to other pilots at the end of the day. Contests are a great way to improve your soaring skills. I recommend making your own decisions and flying your own flight to anyone who enjoys getting better.

Displaying other pilot's contest ID's and climb rates via FLARM not only make the results of other pilots at the end of the day less meaningful, but each pilot will not have the same sense that they accomplished the flight themselves. Not entirely so, but to some extent. Surely, racing pilots will make some use of this data if available. This is what I mean by watering down the sport and decreasing the adventure of it all.

XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 06:23 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:13:00 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> Perhaps a better path for you and Andy would be to get involved in the ongoing discussion about the best range to show proximate traffic in competition (stealth) mode. (Remember intruder traffic is displayed at any range the FLARM set up can detect). Perhaps the range should be configurable to show proximate traffic farther away in western contests. The algorithm could also be modified to identify more threats. These are all possibilities. I still see no need to display contest ID, climb rate, i.e. all the competitive stuff. Relative altitude is displayed.

Good idea. As it happens, that's exactly what's happening. I agree climb rate display is not needed, but undithered altitude difference is important as is Contest ID - or you have no solution to the "you zig, I zag" problem - this is also an issue with ridge flying.

Don't forget what got one of our friends killed in Uvalde involved multiple ship formations - which also happens a lot. Who is the alarm for? Is there another glider to one side or the other? You don't know until you have only 10 seconds to (yikes!) look at the display and decide - and hope the other guy(s) don't null out your adjustment. There really is no perfect substitute for better situational awareness. Most pilots I talk to who fly these conditions think it's better to avoid a conflict than react to one where you may (or may not) need to make an impulse move because you don't know which way to turn (and the other pilot(s) may not make complementary turn decisions). Also keep in mind that you are more likely to get an alarm from a glider maneuvering to become a threat than is right on a collision course from max range all the way in. The odds that you will have a track on a glider from max range (and hold it) is low. The idea that Flarm will generate an alarm for conflicts at max range is only a partial solution.

> Also, I think we can agree a few degrees of bank is all that is need to avoid traffic at 110 kts.

That's more true the further out the target is so you are making my point for me. A couple of degrees of bank is an easy fix 4-5 miles out because you can observe the change in tracks, it's less certain at 5-15 seconds and there is no backup plan when one glider goes right and the other goes left - that's a very bad oops!

This is analogous to two people walking down the hall at each other. Flarm open mode is with the lights on. Stealth mode is in a pitch black hallway where each person has a small, narrow beam flashlight. Now try it while you're running. Then try it while you're running a gentle slalom.

Note: I realize we flew for years without Flarm and only killed a handful of guys per decade. My main point is that if we have the technology installed to make most of that go away that is amazing! Why are proposing to go to a bunch of trouble to mandate less and require people to enforce rules that make it ANY worse when even the strongest advocates for stealth mode argue that it mostly affects middle of the scoresheet guys on marginal days (days that we already devalue as having a lot of luck factor) and the main benefit is we get more landouts - presumably with some more landout accidents and unhappy pilots. Generating more landouts isn't high on my list of priorities - it's a recipe for a smaller sport.

The pilot community was pretty clear they like flying with more situational awareness - for safety as well as enjoyment reasons. If we chase a lot of pilots out of racing to OLC and XC camp formats (or something else) how valid will contest result be then? Finishing third out of four competitors when the fourth guy was only fourth because he landed out on a marginal day is hardly a podium placing to take much pride in.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 06:39 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 8:51:52 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> John and Richard,
>
> I do remember my cross country skills improved greatly when I was mentored at home by W3. I quickly found that by following him around the course I stopped making my own decisions and I got nothing out of it. We then went to a system where we started together for fun, soon split off to follow our own decisions and raced around the course. Comparing my decisions to a seasoned pilot at the end of the day is very useful and much more gratifying.
>
> I go to contests to do the same thing - put up my best effort against the other pilots at the contest and compare the results in the end. I enjoy this very much. I recommend flying your own flight to anyone who enjoys getting better.
>
> XC

True - or mostly true. I learn a bit every time from observing another pilot's decision-making. I think it's important to make your own decisions and observe when others make different ones - what did they see? - what was their reasoning? - did I have a better idea? Sometimes you learn more by going your own way and playing your hunch out, seeing what happens down course, sometimes you learn more by making the mental note that you'd have done it differently, that it was probably not as good a choice and staying together for the next decision. The important point is to always be thinking about what you think you should be doing next. You can't learn with your brain turned off - plus it's super annoying to the people with their brains turned on.

9B

[email protected]

November 28th 15, 07:15 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:23:51 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:13:00 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a better path for you and Andy would be to get involved in the ongoing discussion about the best range to show proximate traffic in competition (stealth) mode. (Remember intruder traffic is displayed at any range the FLARM set up can detect). Perhaps the range should be configurable to show proximate traffic farther away in western contests. The algorithm could also be modified to identify more threats. These are all possibilities. I still see no need to display contest ID, climb rate, i.e. all the competitive stuff. Relative altitude is displayed.
>
> Good idea. As it happens, that's exactly what's happening. I agree climb rate display is not needed, but undithered altitude difference is important as is Contest ID - or you have no solution to the "you zig, I zag" problem - this is also an issue with ridge flying.
>
> Don't forget what got one of our friends killed in Uvalde involved multiple ship formations - which also happens a lot. Who is the alarm for? Is there another glider to one side or the other? You don't know until you have only 10 seconds to (yikes!) look at the display and decide - and hope the other guy(s) don't null out your adjustment. There really is no perfect substitute for better situational awareness. Most pilots I talk to who fly these conditions think it's better to avoid a conflict than react to one where you may (or may not) need to make an impulse move because you don't know which way to turn (and the other pilot(s) may not make complementary turn decisions). Also keep in mind that you are more likely to get an alarm from a glider maneuvering to become a threat than is right on a collision course from max range all the way in. The odds that you will have a track on a glider from max range (and hold it) is low. The idea that Flarm will generate an alarm for conflicts at max range is only a partial solution.
>
> > Also, I think we can agree a few degrees of bank is all that is need to avoid traffic at 110 kts.
>
> That's more true the further out the target is so you are making my point for me. A couple of degrees of bank is an easy fix 4-5 miles out because you can observe the change in tracks, it's less certain at 5-15 seconds and there is no backup plan when one glider goes right and the other goes left - that's a very bad oops!
>
> This is analogous to two people walking down the hall at each other. Flarm open mode is with the lights on. Stealth mode is in a pitch black hallway where each person has a small, narrow beam flashlight. Now try it while you're running. Then try it while you're running a gentle slalom.
>
> Note: I realize we flew for years without Flarm and only killed a handful of guys per decade. My main point is that if we have the technology installed to make most of that go away that is amazing! Why are proposing to go to a bunch of trouble to mandate less and require people to enforce rules that make it ANY worse when even the strongest advocates for stealth mode argue that it mostly affects middle of the scoresheet guys on marginal days (days that we already devalue as having a lot of luck factor) and the main benefit is we get more landouts - presumably with some more landout accidents and unhappy pilots. Generating more landouts isn't high on my list of priorities - it's a recipe for a smaller sport.
>
> The pilot community was pretty clear they like flying with more situational awareness - for safety as well as enjoyment reasons. If we chase a lot of pilots out of racing to OLC and XC camp formats (or something else) how valid will contest result be then? Finishing third out of four competitors when the fourth guy was only fourth because he landed out on a marginal day is hardly a podium placing to take much pride in.
>
> 9B

The initial thought I had at Uvalde is the he probably had his head down adjusting the scale on his PDA as he went into (out of) the turn. This is just speculation but it truly was what we were thinking on that day.

Andy, you're really overselling this. I never said I was in favor of more land outs, just that pilots should not be able to artificially increase their achieved speeds by routinely using other people's thermals which are conveniently labeled with climb rates.

Everyone should count out loud 10 seconds as a worse case scenario and see if it enough time to avoid a glider or a formation of gliders while looking outside your glider. I think it is. If folks want to go back in forth between outside and your cockpit display and analyze things then they are going to get caught looking in the wrong place.

XC

Richard[_9_]

November 28th 15, 08:29 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:15:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:23:51 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:13:00 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps a better path for you and Andy would be to get involved in the ongoing discussion about the best range to show proximate traffic in competition (stealth) mode. (Remember intruder traffic is displayed at any range the FLARM set up can detect). Perhaps the range should be configurable to show proximate traffic farther away in western contests. The algorithm could also be modified to identify more threats. These are all possibilities. I still see no need to display contest ID, climb rate, i.e. all the competitive stuff. Relative altitude is displayed.
> >
> > Good idea. As it happens, that's exactly what's happening. I agree climb rate display is not needed, but undithered altitude difference is important as is Contest ID - or you have no solution to the "you zig, I zag" problem - this is also an issue with ridge flying.
> >
> > Don't forget what got one of our friends killed in Uvalde involved multiple ship formations - which also happens a lot. Who is the alarm for? Is there another glider to one side or the other? You don't know until you have only 10 seconds to (yikes!) look at the display and decide - and hope the other guy(s) don't null out your adjustment. There really is no perfect substitute for better situational awareness. Most pilots I talk to who fly these conditions think it's better to avoid a conflict than react to one where you may (or may not) need to make an impulse move because you don't know which way to turn (and the other pilot(s) may not make complementary turn decisions). Also keep in mind that you are more likely to get an alarm from a glider maneuvering to become a threat than is right on a collision course from max range all the way in. The odds that you will have a track on a glider from max range (and hold it) is low. The idea that Flarm will generate an alarm for conflicts at max range is only a partial solution.
> >
> > > Also, I think we can agree a few degrees of bank is all that is need to avoid traffic at 110 kts.
> >
> > That's more true the further out the target is so you are making my point for me. A couple of degrees of bank is an easy fix 4-5 miles out because you can observe the change in tracks, it's less certain at 5-15 seconds and there is no backup plan when one glider goes right and the other goes left - that's a very bad oops!
> >
> > This is analogous to two people walking down the hall at each other. Flarm open mode is with the lights on. Stealth mode is in a pitch black hallway where each person has a small, narrow beam flashlight. Now try it while you're running. Then try it while you're running a gentle slalom.
> >
> > Note: I realize we flew for years without Flarm and only killed a handful of guys per decade. My main point is that if we have the technology installed to make most of that go away that is amazing! Why are proposing to go to a bunch of trouble to mandate less and require people to enforce rules that make it ANY worse when even the strongest advocates for stealth mode argue that it mostly affects middle of the scoresheet guys on marginal days (days that we already devalue as having a lot of luck factor) and the main benefit is we get more landouts - presumably with some more landout accidents and unhappy pilots. Generating more landouts isn't high on my list of priorities - it's a recipe for a smaller sport.
> >
> > The pilot community was pretty clear they like flying with more situational awareness - for safety as well as enjoyment reasons. If we chase a lot of pilots out of racing to OLC and XC camp formats (or something else) how valid will contest result be then? Finishing third out of four competitors when the fourth guy was only fourth because he landed out on a marginal day is hardly a podium placing to take much pride in.
> >
> > 9B
>
> The initial thought I had at Uvalde is the he probably had his head down adjusting the scale on his PDA as he went into (out of) the turn. This is just speculation but it truly was what we were thinking on that day.
>
> Andy, you're really overselling this. I never said I was in favor of more land outs, just that pilots should not be able to artificially increase their achieved speeds by routinely using other people's thermals which are conveniently labeled with climb rates.
>
> Everyone should count out loud 10 seconds as a worse case scenario and see if it enough time to avoid a glider or a formation of gliders while looking outside your glider. I think it is. If folks want to go back in forth between outside and your cockpit display and analyze things then they are going to get caught looking in the wrong place.
>
> XC

XC

I absolutely agree compromising safety will increase the adventure of it all.

As for the approximately 14 seconds you get at 2km. Let us start the count after you identify a head on glider with a closure rate of 260 knots. Assuming you ever see the glider. Eyes don't see point sources that don't have relative movement. I suggest much less time to avoid.

Richard

John Carlyle

November 28th 15, 08:54 PM

Sean,

I'm not saying "follow the better pilots", I'm saying be aware of where other pilots are and factor that into your own decision making. That way, if you become aware you're out in left field because you read the sky wrong, you have a chance to correct your mistaken judgment before it's too late.

I agree with you, following someone without thinking (ie, leeching) teaches you nothing. But going to a tricky site, making poor decisions and landing out denies you a lot of in-flight learning opportunity that you sacrificed a good deal of time and money to try and get.

What I'm saying is that less experienced pilots can use non-stealthed Flarm to get hints during contest flights and use those hints to make their own decisions without leeching. Denying them those hints is equivalent to teaching someone to swim by throwing them in deep water.

-John, Q3

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> John and Richard,
>
> I do remember the days when I had no clue how to fly cross country. Luckily, I had an experienced pilot like W3 to fly with at the home base. I quickly realized that following him was no way to get better. Instead, we have gone to setting a task and starting together for fun. After a few clouds we end up making different decisions and splitting off. After racing around the course we compare results to see who did it better and how. This is really fun and much more gratifying.
>
> I go to contests to do the same thing. I put up my best effort and compare it to other pilots at the end of the day. Contests are a great way to improve your soaring skills. I recommend making your own decisions and flying your own flight to anyone who enjoys getting better.
>
> Displaying other pilot's contest ID's and climb rates via FLARM not only make the results of other pilots at the end of the day less meaningful, but each pilot will not have the same sense that they accomplished the flight themselves. Not entirely so, but to some extent. Surely, racing pilots will make some use of this data if available. This is what I mean by watering down the sport and decreasing the adventure of it all.
>
> XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 09:19 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:15:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> The initial thought I had at Uvalde is the he probably had his head down adjusting the scale on his PDA as he went into (out of) the turn. This is just speculation but it truly was what we were thinking on that day.
>

We'll never know what Chris was doing and I'm loathe to get too much deeper into a painful memory in this discussion. I did talk to the other pilot, who's a friend, at great length - it's in the Soaring article on Flarm from 2014. Suffice it to say at least one person was looking and scanning pretty hard. It's a very challenging visual problem for humans - we weren't bred to pick these kinds of thing up.

>
> Andy, you're really overselling this. I never said I was in favor of more land outs, just that pilots should not be able to artificially increase their achieved speeds by routinely using other people's thermals which are conveniently labeled with climb rates.
>

I've always just been looking for the scenario that is being solved for. Either there will be more landouts from missed saves or there's not much benefit being generated. If I accept your point but assume zero incremental landouts, just that one course line might have a superior climb in it and some other line might not. First, that's one scoop skill, one scoop local knowledge and one scoop dumb luck). I wager for the non-random part it benefits different pilots on different days by a minute or two - or 8-14 points on the days when it works. So you're up 8 one day, no benefit three other days and down 14 another day for minus 6 points net at the end of a week. It's so far down in the noise of random events at a contest that the signal to noise ratio isn't even measurable. Add to that the fact that pilots who systematically take other people's thermals rather than their own generate about 10-15% slower climbs on average (actual data from suspected leech-heavy contests). At the end of the contest you end up with people who try to use Flarm to follow being down several hundred points for having been a sucker - not counting any other shortcomings they may have.

I'm fine with deleting climb rates, I find them useless anyway, they are snapshots with no total energy - I normally pick up the pullup (+10 its or so), followed by a lot of randomness.
>

> Everyone should count out loud 10 seconds as a worse case scenario and see if it enough time to avoid a glider or a formation of gliders while looking outside your glider. I think it is. If folks want to go back in forth between outside and your cockpit display and analyze things then they are going to get caught looking in the wrong place.

Should be fine. Hope it'll be fine - until you see the other guy in quartering trail behind the alarm target or realize the target glider turned right just as you turned left. It's hard to pick that up on the display (do you look out the canopy or down at the display to sort that out?) at one update per second so you need a couple of updates to see where he went - or you try to pick him up by looking in that direction, but your odds of seeing him in time are about 50/50 - from FAA and NTSB experimental studies.

The suggestion is to have some range so you avoid collision courses all together rather than waiting for them to happen.

Yes these are small probabilities of horrific events - but that was the whole point of Flarm in the first place. Part of the reason why stealth mode "works just fine" is that flying without Flarm works just fine even if you don't look out the window - almost all the time.

I'll surely fly in a stealth mandated contest if there is no reasonable alternative, but I've been finding the less restricted OLC/XC events pretty enjoyable too and it will certainly affect my choice of mix. That's just me. The poll would indicate more pilots are not fond of stealth than are fond of stealth.9q1

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 28th 15, 09:59 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:19:12 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

One other perspective. I really hate getting collision alarms - particularly on course where you by definition have missed something if it happens. It generates a near-panic emotional response because you are potentially seconds from being hit. A little tunnel vision sets in as you look down to the display to try to make out the direction and relative altitude of the target and then swing your gaze to pick them up - and figure out what to do. I have on occasion picked up the wrong (farther away) glider in the same general direction - that leads to a very nasty surprise.

Flarm is architected as a multi-layer defense against collisions. The collision alarm is the last line of defense and the broader target tracking is the more important preventative layer - much the way ATC vectoring of traffic is the more important part of keeping airliners apart and TCAS is the last line of defense.

I find degrading the first line of defense and relying only on the last line of defense to not only be somewhat additionally risky because you are counting on everyone to do the right thing in a few seconds under stress, but it is also more anxiety producing to rely almost entirely on an alarm of an impending collision, rather than staying out of each other's way - even if it works out perfectly every time an alarm happens. I don't think very many people would be comfortable getting on airliners if they sent all the air traffic controllers home and relied just on TCAS - even if it worked perfectly every single time.

I know - I've totally lost my sense of excitement and adventure.

9B

jfitch

November 28th 15, 11:23 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 6:51:46 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

>
> WRT thermals, one prior poster observed that Winpilot is excellent for displaying gliders in a thermal. The idea of someone in a thermal not looking out the window 100% of the time is troubling to me. There have been at least two instances I am personally aware of where FLARM equipped gliders have collided in a thermal.
>
> QT

WRT to tac display in thermals, I am more concerned about the gliders I cannot see, than the ones I can. The latter have already been accounted for. The former will not be seen even if I put 200% of my attention outside the cockpit. These are the ones behind or below in the circle. A poor tactical display may require too much attention to process, leading to a loss of overall situational awareness. A good one requires a 1 second glance to process everything.

jfitch

November 28th 15, 11:37 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:35:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> 1/4 minute is ample time - that is about when Flarm issues its first acoustic collision alert. I have participated in several head on collision scenarios during a Flarm trial. Even waiting until the third level of Flarm alarm before reacting all that is required is a gentle change of direction a few degrees. The key thing is that Flarm has alerted you to visually acquire the potential threat that you might not otherwise have done.
>
> BTW my strong belief is the the first response to a Flarm acoustic alert should be to look along track, to see a possible head on threat, before looking at the visual display. Head on threats are the most high energy.
>
> There is far too much concentration on Flarm visual displays (eyes down) instead of the acoustic alert (eyes outside).

1/4 minute may be ample in controlled tests between two gliders. It may not be in the real world.

Imagine three gliders at 200 kph slightly separated vertically, horizontally, and longitudenally running a street, meeting 3 gliders similarly displaced on an opposite heading. This is not all that uncommon over the Whites in the west. You have 12 seconds to visually ID the three opposing gliders, account for the two with you, decide on an evasive action and implement it, all without knowing the plans of the 5 other gliders, and making further adjustments when 2 of the other 5 didn't do what you guessed. You cannot visually ID a glider head on against clouds at 2 km, hard even at 1 in a short time. Had you seen them 5 or 10 km away, the situation will not even arise since a minor adjustment would have completely eliminated the possibility.

I have argued against considering Flarm to be that much of a safety device, given that mid air collisions are quite rare. But to have it in the cockpit and then disable it in precisely the conditions most likely to cause a mid air (most of them have been in contests) is odd logic.

[email protected]

November 29th 15, 07:40 AM

There seems to be some misunderstanding and dysfunctional response to Flarm alarms being described here. When an alarm sounds look out and scan fully and quickly (including above) rather than looking at the display first. If you see no glider that appears to be on a collision course you are in the same position as you would be if you didn't have Flarm but were being really attentive to see and avoid PLUS the other glider that you can't see is also getting an alarm and he can probably see you if you can't see him. People seem to forget in theur response to alerts that Flarm is two way and we are also giving out alarms.

Local soaring for my club is many gliders on the same short ridge soaring back and forth at similar altitudes and we can get several Flarm alerts per hour on a busy day. Sometines it isn't possible to tell which glider you're sharing an alert with. I rarely look at the display in gaggles and local hill soaring and if ahead and all around and above seems clear and the then I just make a slight deviation and trust that I am in the view of the other glider. Often alerts go away without me knowing where it came from. In this scenario, as in busy thermals, we Flarm equipped pilots are far better off by having our See and Avoid continually stimulated.

The problem is gliders that don't have Flarn and we had a collision between two of those on our ridge a couple of years ago.

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 29th 15, 07:59 AM

So let me understand what you are saying. You are flying along doing a scan as always and then when you get a Flarm alert you continue the same scan, only more quickly, that has not yielded any results because to glance at the screen for a position of the possible collision target would be dysfunctional? And oh, if you have not seen the collision target glider, don't worry he has probably seen you. Just beautiful.

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> There seems to be some misunderstanding and dysfunctional response to Flarm alarms being described here. When an alarm sounds look out and scan fully and quickly (including above) rather than looking at the display first. If you see no glider that appears to be on a collision course you are in the same position as you would be if you didn't have Flarm but were being really attentive to see and avoid PLUS the other glider that you can't see is also getting an alarm and he can probably see you if you can't see him. People seem to forget in theur response to alerts that Flarm is two way and we are also giving out alarms.
>

> The problem is gliders that don't have Flarn and we had a collision between two of those on our ridge a couple of years ago.

James Metcalfe

November 29th 15, 03:33 PM

At 03:22 27 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>James, if you are plagued by false alarms coming even from
the wrong
>heading, I am all the more curious. I have not had any false
alarms, perhaps
>some false negatives (probably should had been an alarm).
Never from the wrong
>direction. Do you have the IGC files from a flight in which you
remember
>that happening? It would be interesting to put it into SeeYou or
other
>software (or even look at it in a text editor) to see what the
accuracy of fix
>was. I have noticed that the Flarm GPS is typically reporting a
larger
>error, and in some cases quite large. I'm not sure what the
algorithms do with
>the precision of fix, but it seems like that is the most likely
source of
>the errors you describe. For example the Flarm IGC file from
my glider will
>show a typical precision of fix of around 3 - 4 meters, but
sometimes it
>will go up to 30-40 for unknown reasons. The Air Avionics gps
will show a
>precision of 1 - 2 meters on the same flight and might also go
up in the same
>areas but not as much. Ridge flying in the Alps you might have
the antenna
>shaded on one or more sides, which will increase the HDOP.
The precision is
>the normally the last three digits of the B record in the IGC
file. All of
>my flying is high altitude and with a clear view of the sky.

Others have now posted in more detail on the track vs. heading
errors of Flarm. These are inevitable (until wind information is
available to Flarm), and not (I’m confident) a problem with any
of the 3 installations which I have used. I’m afraid I have not
kept a log of the various incidents to which I have referred, nor
do I have the IGC files.

It seems to me that you yourself have provided the explanation
of the differences in our experiences of Flarm:
- You fly largely alone, in wide open spaces, but occasionally
meeting other gliders on the same cloud street.
- I fly mainly in a busy Alpine setting, constantly close to (and
co-operating with) other gliders on ridges and in thermals. (If I
find myself alone I am reassured that it is not just me who is
finding the conditions difficult to soar in!)
J.

jfitch

November 29th 15, 04:45 PM

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 7:45:09 AM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 03:22 27 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
> >James, if you are plagued by false alarms coming even from
> the wrong
> >heading, I am all the more curious. I have not had any false
> alarms, perhaps
> >some false negatives (probably should had been an alarm).
> Never from the wrong
> >direction. Do you have the IGC files from a flight in which you
> remember
> >that happening? It would be interesting to put it into SeeYou or
> other
> >software (or even look at it in a text editor) to see what the
> accuracy of fix
> >was. I have noticed that the Flarm GPS is typically reporting a
> larger
> >error, and in some cases quite large. I'm not sure what the
> algorithms do with
> >the precision of fix, but it seems like that is the most likely
> source of
> >the errors you describe. For example the Flarm IGC file from
> my glider will
> >show a typical precision of fix of around 3 - 4 meters, but
> sometimes it
> >will go up to 30-40 for unknown reasons. The Air Avionics gps
> will show a
> >precision of 1 - 2 meters on the same flight and might also go
> up in the same
> >areas but not as much. Ridge flying in the Alps you might have
> the antenna
> >shaded on one or more sides, which will increase the HDOP.
> The precision is
> >the normally the last three digits of the B record in the IGC
> file. All of
> >my flying is high altitude and with a clear view of the sky.
>
> Others have now posted in more detail on the track vs. heading
> errors of Flarm. These are inevitable (until wind information is
> available to Flarm), and not (I'm confident) a problem with any
> of the 3 installations which I have used. I'm afraid I have not
> kept a log of the various incidents to which I have referred, nor
> do I have the IGC files.
>
> It seems to me that you yourself have provided the explanation
> of the differences in our experiences of Flarm:
> - You fly largely alone, in wide open spaces, but occasionally
> meeting other gliders on the same cloud street.
> - I fly mainly in a busy Alpine setting, constantly close to (and
> co-operating with) other gliders on ridges and in thermals. (If I
> find myself alone I am reassured that it is not just me who is
> finding the conditions difficult to soar in!)
> J.

A diametrically opposed false alarm in a thermal suggests wind in the 30 - 60 knot range. I have not seen good thermal development in those conditions, even in extremely strong western desert conditions. I have flown in gaggles of 10 - 15 gliders near the same altitude in the same thermal and have never had such a false alarm.

jfitch

November 29th 15, 04:49 PM

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> There seems to be some misunderstanding and dysfunctional response to Flarm alarms being described here. When an alarm sounds look out and scan fully and quickly (including above) rather than looking at the display first. If you see no glider that appears to be on a collision course you are in the same position as you would be if you didn't have Flarm but were being really attentive to see and avoid PLUS the other glider that you can't see is also getting an alarm and he can probably see you if you can't see him. People seem to forget in theur response to alerts that Flarm is two way and we are also giving out alarms.
>
> Local soaring for my club is many gliders on the same short ridge soaring back and forth at similar altitudes and we can get several Flarm alerts per hour on a busy day. Sometines it isn't possible to tell which glider you're sharing an alert with. I rarely look at the display in gaggles and local hill soaring and if ahead and all around and above seems clear and the then I just make a slight deviation and trust that I am in the view of the other glider. Often alerts go away without me knowing where it came from. In this scenario, as in busy thermals, we Flarm equipped pilots are far better off by having our See and Avoid continually stimulated.
>
> The problem is gliders that don't have Flarn and we had a collision between two of those on our ridge a couple of years ago.

Another point about tac displays and warnings vs. attention: A voice warning system eliminates any visual attention deficit, no glance it necessary. The voice warnings from the Air Avionics vario are very good. On the other hand keeping track of nearby traffic on the tactical display when they are farther away, is exactly the time you can afford the attention to it, process the information, and plan avoidance maneuvers, compared to an unexpected warning giving only a few seconds to do all of that.

[email protected]

November 29th 15, 06:15 PM

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 4:45:58 PM UTC, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 7:45:09 AM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> > At 03:22 27 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
> > >James, if you are plagued by false alarms coming even from
> > the wrong
> > >heading, I am all the more curious. I have not had any false
> > alarms, perhaps
> > >some false negatives (probably should had been an alarm).
> > Never from the wrong
> > >direction. Do you have the IGC files from a flight in which you
> > remember
> > >that happening? It would be interesting to put it into SeeYou or
> > other
> > >software (or even look at it in a text editor) to see what the
> > accuracy of fix
> > >was. I have noticed that the Flarm GPS is typically reporting a
> > larger
> > >error, and in some cases quite large. I'm not sure what the
> > algorithms do with
> > >the precision of fix, but it seems like that is the most likely
> > source of
> > >the errors you describe. For example the Flarm IGC file from
> > my glider will
> > >show a typical precision of fix of around 3 - 4 meters, but
> > sometimes it
> > >will go up to 30-40 for unknown reasons. The Air Avionics gps
> > will show a
> > >precision of 1 - 2 meters on the same flight and might also go
> > up in the same
> > >areas but not as much. Ridge flying in the Alps you might have
> > the antenna
> > >shaded on one or more sides, which will increase the HDOP.
> > The precision is
> > >the normally the last three digits of the B record in the IGC
> > file. All of
> > >my flying is high altitude and with a clear view of the sky.
> >
> > Others have now posted in more detail on the track vs. heading
> > errors of Flarm. These are inevitable (until wind information is
> > available to Flarm), and not (I'm confident) a problem with any
> > of the 3 installations which I have used. I'm afraid I have not
> > kept a log of the various incidents to which I have referred, nor
> > do I have the IGC files.
> >
> > It seems to me that you yourself have provided the explanation
> > of the differences in our experiences of Flarm:
> > - You fly largely alone, in wide open spaces, but occasionally
> > meeting other gliders on the same cloud street.
> > - I fly mainly in a busy Alpine setting, constantly close to (and
> > co-operating with) other gliders on ridges and in thermals. (If I
> > find myself alone I am reassured that it is not just me who is
> > finding the conditions difficult to soar in!)
> > J.
>
> A diametrically opposed false alarm in a thermal suggests wind in the 30 - 60 knot range. I have not seen good thermal development in those conditions, even in extremely strong western desert conditions. I have flown in gaggles of 10 - 15 gliders near the same altitude in the same thermal and have never had such a false alarm.

Given that Flarm is comparing predicted flight paths of the two gliders and issuing alerts based on calculations of possible conflicts up to 18 seconds ahead you would have to be certain that both gliders were flying exactly concentric circles of the same radius and speed before you could be sure that an alert from a diametrically opposed glider was a "false alarm". It would be more likely that the Flarm units were performing as designed and within their fairly large buffers 18 seconds ahead. Granted, our personal buffer zones in thermals are tighter than the those of the Flarm algorithms. As I wrote previously I have demonstrated in flight to a copilot that what he thought was a false alarm from an almost diametrically opposed glider was in fact proven to be a valid alarm about 3/4 turn later. The other glider was diametrically opposed but not flying concentrically with us.

James Metcalfe

November 29th 15, 08:54 PM

At 16:45 29 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>A diametrically opposed false alarm in a thermal suggests wind in
the 30 - 60 knot range. I have not seen good thermal development
in those
>conditions, even in extremely strong western desert conditions. I
have flown in
>gaggles of 10 - 15 gliders near the same altitude in the same
thermal and have
>never had such a false alarm.

Sigh! You have combined two unrelated things that I have
mentioned:
(1) having "collision warnings about a glider opposite me in the
thermal"
(2) "Flarm direction is often significantly different from the true
direction (occasionally diametrically opposite), as it is track-based,
not heading-based"

Pay attention at the back!
J.

Matt Herron Jr.

November 29th 15, 11:09 PM

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:35:10 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
> Has anyone been thankful that they have had FLARM?
>
> And do the same people have a transponder?
>
> How many people fly with FLARM or Transponder?
>
> Let's hear about the close calls, or potential close calls, or even the peace of mind of awareness.

PowerFlarm helped me avoid a mid air at the Truckee FAI contest this year. I was going north on the Pine Nuts looking for lift. I know I was being followed by another glider behind and above but wasn't sure of exactly where.. I turned right in strong lift, came around 180 degrees climbing as I turned, and the flarm went nuts. I was banking into a head-on with the pilot following me. I turned hard right, and he turned hard right. Sweaty palms were the only negative outcome.

Buy one and install it this winter. If not for your benefit, then for the other guy.

Matt

jfitch

November 30th 15, 12:07 AM

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-8, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 16:45 29 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
> >A diametrically opposed false alarm in a thermal suggests wind in
> the 30 - 60 knot range. I have not seen good thermal development
> in those
> >conditions, even in extremely strong western desert conditions. I
> have flown in
> >gaggles of 10 - 15 gliders near the same altitude in the same
> thermal and have
> >never had such a false alarm.
>
> Sigh! You have combined two unrelated things that I have
> mentioned:
> (1) having "collision warnings about a glider opposite me in the
> thermal"
> (2) "Flarm direction is often significantly different from the true
> direction (occasionally diametrically opposite), as it is track-based,
> not heading-based"
>
> Pay attention at the back!
> J.

It seemed as though (2) was being offered as an explanation for (1). If not because of the difference between track and heading, then why? I am still curious why you get these and I don't (nor anyone else I know), and never have, aren't you? Perhaps we can learn something here. My experience is all with PowerFlarm, different algorithm? Better GPS? All the warnings I have ever gotten in thermals where someone right ahead or right behind, or turning the other direction.

November 30th 15, 01:24 AM

What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck the adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted together. Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other units. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the thermals gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will log all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the preferred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be able to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and lift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems to be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.

I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose it. The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense. From the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.

XC

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 30th 15, 03:23 AM

Was not aware soaring had a mission statement. Ever heard of sustainer engines, self launch gliders. Did you know jets are now used in gliders, this doesn't violate your sense of the "adventure". They even make gliders with electric sustainers with folded propellers.

Maybe individuals should not on their own accord set what they want for the entire sport. Did you know winglets were the forefront of technology when they were developed for gliders?

Maybe the marketplace is a better arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. To stand in the way of technology is to stand in the way of progress.. Imagine the same argument made when transitioning from wood and fabric to glass. Remember the film virus GPS debate? Not even sure they make film now.

I cannot think of one argument against technology (other than pervasive government spying on its citizens) that did not end up n the wrong side of history.

Galio, had the same push back from the catholic church, who to this day are against the use of safe sex. Not to offend anyone's sense or sensibility just wanted to make a point. By way of fun disclosure I was raised Catholic.

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:24:05 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck the adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted together. Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other units. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the thermals gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will log all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the preferred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be able to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and lift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems to be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.
>
> I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose it. The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense. From the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.
>
> XC

Tango Eight

November 30th 15, 04:05 AM

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:24:01 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> I cannot think of one argument against technology (other than pervasive government spying on its citizens) that did not end up n the wrong side of history.

Oh good grief, how about: anabolics, EPO, PFCs and other performance enhancing drugs. They've basically destroyed competition cycling (that's my opinion, anyway) and the regulatory bodies still haven't figured out how to clean up the sport for real.

I think Sean's being a bit a(f)larmist (sorry), but there's no doubt that the "fish finder" changes things tactically and it's not wrong to look ahead and think about where creative minds can push this technology.

T8

November 30th 15, 04:28 AM

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:24:01 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was not aware soaring had a mission statement. Ever heard of sustainer engines, self launch gliders. Did you know jets are now used in gliders, this doesn't violate your sense of the "adventure". They even make gliders with electric sustainers with folded propellers.
>
> Maybe individuals should not on their own accord set what they want for the entire sport. Did you know winglets were the forefront of technology when they were developed for gliders?
>
> Maybe the marketplace is a better arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. To stand in the way of technology is to stand in the way of progress. Imagine the same argument made when transitioning from wood and fabric to glass. Remember the film virus GPS debate? Not even sure they make film now.
>
> I cannot think of one argument against technology (other than pervasive government spying on its citizens) that did not end up n the wrong side of history.
>
> Galio, had the same push back from the catholic church, who to this day are against the use of safe sex. Not to offend anyone's sense or sensibility just wanted to make a point. By way of fun disclosure I was raised Catholic.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:24:05 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck the adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted together. Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other units. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the thermals gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will log all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the preferred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be able to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and lift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems to be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.
> >
> > I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose it. The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense.. From the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.
> >
> > XC

Of course I am aware of the different sustainer options that available today. Please, I am trying have a real discussion about the sport here.

I am speaking of sailplane racing. We do not have a mission statement to use a boring corporate term. Said another way, we have no one leading the discussion on what is in-bounds and out-of-bounds for our sport. In which ways are we competing?

All sports have parameters. Okay sustainers are acceptable now. This has benefits but has driven up costs...what does that do for the future and enjoyability of the sport? No one is asking these questions.

There are plenty of arguments against technology in sports that have proven good. Wooden bats for pro baseball. They saved building bigger and bigger stadiums, preserved the validity of records, and are much harder to hit with thereby providing greater differentiation in hitter skills. They are trying to limit the use of steroids in sports (somewhat trying!?)

Fishing is the best example. What if we used every technology available to catch fish? You have your bass fishermen zooming all over the lake with big motors and fish finders yanking as many fish out as they can and you have fly fishermen standing in a creek with a fly rod. Or you can use nets or dynamite. Each of these methods yields a different looking sport. If everyone gets together to catch and compare fish yet anything goes, the comparison of skills is meaningless and dull.

I would suggest that we measure a pilots ability to read the sky and efficiently use it without the use of outside information. I understand GPS is an outside signal and is acceptable, but pulling up information on the internet or phoning a friend (maybe a super great glider pilot) on the ground with a bank of computer screens seems out-of-bounds. Hey, that's just my opinion. The consensus in the end may be different but let's get to a consensus on what we are about.

XC

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 30th 15, 05:02 AM

Just to be clear the abuse of banned drugs is not a technological advance.

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 8:05:23 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:24:01 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > I cannot think of one argument against technology (other than pervasive government spying on its citizens) that did not end up n the wrong side of history.
>
> Oh good grief, how about: anabolics, EPO, PFCs and other performance enhancing drugs. They've basically destroyed competition cycling (that's my opinion, anyway) and the regulatory bodies still haven't figured out how to clean up the sport for real.
>
> I think Sean's being a bit a(f)larmist (sorry), but there's no doubt that the "fish finder" changes things tactically and it's not wrong to look ahead and think about where creative minds can push this technology.
>
> T8

Ramy[_2_]

November 30th 15, 08:12 AM

One scenario which may cause constant false alarms which I experienced once with powerflarm is when the other pilot did not configure his powerflarm correctly and as a result was operating as a power plane. This will result in proximity based alert and constant false alarms to every one flying with him until he configured his unit correctly.

Ramy

Jim White[_3_]

November 30th 15, 09:41 AM

XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of LXNav
have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this intelligence
into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed data
into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot
spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.

The LX9000 can already display Metars.

If allowed in competition this will mean that we shall all need to buy
into this expensive technology in order to compete.

Which brings me to drugs in sport. Whereas gliders are pretty easy to
scrutineer, people are not. I have often thought it would be fun to have a
truly 'open' class for the 100 metres. Anything goes: steroids,
amphetamines, opioids, and prosthetics. We would then see how fast man
can go and what man is prepared to do to win.

Jim

At 01:24 30 November 2015, XC wrote:
>What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck
the
>=
>adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted
>together.=
> Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other
>unit=
>s. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the
>thermals=
> gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will
>log=
> all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the
>prefe=
>rred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be
>abl=
>e to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and
>l=
>ift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems
to
>=
>be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.
>
>I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose
>it.=
> The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense.
>Fr=
>om the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.
>
>XC
>

Tango Eight

November 30th 15, 11:10 AM

Links?

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of LXNav
> have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this intelligence
> into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed data
> into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot
> spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.

Tango Eight

November 30th 15, 11:27 AM

It's about quality of sport, so it's about rules.

I could perhaps have chosen better examples from cycling. The UCI has absolutely torturous rules on what constitutes an acceptable bicycle and they even specify the fit of rider to bike (and it varies from event to event). Recumbents would rule the day on time trials over flat courses (and the difference would not be small)... but guess what? They aren't allowed. About a million more examples from motorsports, sailboat racing and yes, even soaring (even the "open" class has rules).

T8

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:02:18 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Just to be clear the abuse of banned drugs is not a technological advance..
>
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 8:05:23 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:24:01 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of one argument against technology (other than pervasive government spying on its citizens) that did not end up n the wrong side of history.
> >
> > Oh good grief, how about: anabolics, EPO, PFCs and other performance enhancing drugs. They've basically destroyed competition cycling (that's my opinion, anyway) and the regulatory bodies still haven't figured out how to clean up the sport for real.
> >
> > I think Sean's being a bit a(f)larmist (sorry), but there's no doubt that the "fish finder" changes things tactically and it's not wrong to look ahead and think about where creative minds can push this technology.
> >
> > T8

Jim White[_3_]

November 30th 15, 12:00 PM

They spoke at the BGA conference in March on this topic. I do not know
whether there is anything written.

Jim

At 11:10 30 November 2015, Tango Eight wrote:
>Links?
>
>
>On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
>> XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of
>LXNav
>> have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this
>intelligence
>> into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed
>data
>> into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot

>> spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.
>

November 30th 15, 01:27 PM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of LXNav
> have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this intelligence
> into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed data
> into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot
> spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.
>
> The LX9000 can already display Metars.
>
> If allowed in competition this will mean that we shall all need to buy
> into this expensive technology in order to compete.
>
> Which brings me to drugs in sport. Whereas gliders are pretty easy to
> scrutineer, people are not. I have often thought it would be fun to have a
> truly 'open' class for the 100 metres. Anything goes: steroids,
> amphetamines, opioids, and prosthetics. We would then see how fast man
> can go and what man is prepared to do to win.
>
> Jim
>
>
> At 01:24 30 November 2015, XC wrote:
> >What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck
> the
> >=
> >adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted
> >together.=
> > Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other
> >unit=
> >s. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the
> >thermals=
> > gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will
> >log=
> > all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the
> >prefe=
> >rred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be
> >abl=
> >e to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and
> >l=
> >ift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems
> to
> >=
> >be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.
> >
> >I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose
> >it.=
> > The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense.
> >Fr=
> >om the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.
> >
> >XC
> >
Wow! Such a beautiful and exciting sport. Tough to watch it reduced to a video game due to lack of forethought.

XC

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 30th 15, 03:57 PM

This is not exactly true. the LXNav 90XX can be equipped with a wifi module. Now try getting a data link via wifi above 2,500 AGL.

I like to fly long distance flights, would love to have XM weather on my LXNav!

The progression of change remains ever present, clocks that bind will be left to rust.

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:45:05 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:

> The LX9000 can already display Metars.
>
>

[email protected]

November 30th 15, 04:35 PM

Hotspot your phone and you have your wifi signal via the 2G/3G/4G network at all ridge and thermic flight altitudes.

I love my LX9070 and being able to email my .igc file from my glider *after* flight. I don't like the use of internet-enabled devices *during* flight and feel that unless you're messaging loved ones your ETA for dinner, it's a form of cheating. :(

CJ

Jim White[_3_]

November 30th 15, 04:50 PM

At 16:35 30 November 2015, wrote:
>Hotspot your phone and you have your wifi signal via the 2G/3G/4G network
>at all ridge and thermic flight altitudes.
>
>I love my LX9070 and being able to email my .igc file from my glider
>*after* flight. I don't like the use of internet-enabled devices
*during*
>flight and feel that unless you're messaging loved ones your ETA for
>dinner, it's a form of cheating. :(
>
>CJ
>
Perish the thought that you would be texting your friends and loved ones
instead of looking out....maybe 'hiya my flm dis got pln t of gldrs onit'

November 30th 15, 06:01 PM

Cold Northern days... Another thread right down the toilet.
Jim

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 30th 15, 06:09 PM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:27:51 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> > XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of LXNav
> > have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this intelligence
> > into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed data
> > into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot
> > spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.
> >
> > The LX9000 can already display Metars.
> >
> > If allowed in competition this will mean that we shall all need to buy
> > into this expensive technology in order to compete.
> >
> > Which brings me to drugs in sport. Whereas gliders are pretty easy to
> > scrutineer, people are not. I have often thought it would be fun to have a
> > truly 'open' class for the 100 metres. Anything goes: steroids,
> > amphetamines, opioids, and prosthetics. We would then see how fast man
> > can go and what man is prepared to do to win.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > At 01:24 30 November 2015, XC wrote:
> > >What I am referring to when I say that FLARM has the potential to suck
> > the
> > >=
> > >adventure out of the sport is the year when the FLARMs are netted
> > >together.=
> > > Each FLARM will receive and relay all the information it has to other
> > >unit=
> > >s. Soon displays will be developed to show the strength of all the
> > >thermals=
> > > gliders are currently using in the whole task area. Next displays will
> > >log=
> > > all the thermals and lift bands for the whole day and color code the
> > >prefe=
> > >rred hot spots. After that the data will be archived and pilots will be
> > >abl=
> > >e to analyze where they want to go given the forecast wind conditions and
> > >l=
> > >ift strength from their arm chair the night before. This scenario seems
> > to
> > >=
> > >be misaligned with the true spirit of the sport.
> > >
> > >I suggest we get a handle on what our sport is all about before we lose
> > >it.=
> > > The idea of soaring as an unlimited technological frontier is nonsense.
> > >Fr=
> > >om the first day soaring has been about motor-less flight.
> > >
> > >XC
> > >
> Wow! Such a beautiful and exciting sport. Tough to watch it reduced to a video game due to lack of forethought.
>
> XC

My considered opinion on this is fivefold:

1) You can do most of this today without use of Flarm or a data connection to the ground. WinPilot has offered aggregate heat maps of thermal locations and strengths based on any number of uploaded IGC tracks, filtered for time of day, time of year, sun angle, wind direction, etc for a decade or so. Nobody I know uses it. You also can - with a little effort - upload BlipMap data to you flight computer to see where you are versus forecasted (not historical, which is far less helpful when things are changing). I've been doing it on paper for years. Once in a while it helps on convergence days.

2) The incremental benefit of seeing the local area outside a mile or two - all the way out to the entire contest area doesn't matter very much at all and it won't - probably not ever. Most of the time, trying to track and use Flarm thermals hurts your speed. Traditional leeching is hard enough to do, and is of limited value. The data strongly suggest that the further back you trail the less value there is and it pretty quickly turns negative. As previously mentioned - an analysis of thermal leeching shows consistently weaker climbs for glider more than a few minutes behind. You could maybe get a super-computer to try to come up with an estimate but subtle differences in the scene out the window (clouds, ripples on ponds, tree leaves turning up and showing a different color on a ridge line, haze domes, dust devils, cloud shadows, cirrus decks, sun on rocks, wind changes, prior experiences with all of the above) all matter so much and don't make it into the hypothetical heat map. It is out of date the minute it is produced. Everything I ever learned about analytics, optimization and feedback systems and every single contest day I've scrutinized tells me this problem has way too little signal and way too much noise for anyone to benefit - even if you know every thermal in use or recently in used over the entire course.

3) Even a God-map of previously used thermals over the entire course did provide useful information that made more than a handful of points difference in a race it doesn't materially change the role of the pilot - which is to make tactical decisions about what course to fly and what thermals to take versus pass up - all based on highly variable, uncertain and time-sensitive information about not what is going on right now but what is likely to be going at some time and place in the future that you can actually get to in time for it to matter. More information is just information - more historical information, particularly about choices pilots made about which course to fly or thermal to take is mostly irrelevant but I see no harm in pilots trying to use it. It doesn't turn glider flying int a video game any more than a variometer or GPS do. The decision-making gets richer, not more robotic. The "head in the cockpit" argument is also bunk. Any pilot who doesn't understand how to do an instrument scan shouldn't be flying no matter what - but particularly looking at a display that is filled with a radar scope of where all the other gliders are hardly seems worse than looking outside trying to pick up maybe half or less of them with the naked eye.

4) For the odd situation where situational data does provide useful information, it mostly evens out what most pilots I know think of as unfair advantages - and outcomes that the current scoring formulae devalue. On a ridge day, you will be able to discover that - well - that the ridge is working, and on a wave day you'll be able to discover the location of the wave so that the one or two pilots who stumble into it or have local knowledge won't run away with the day when everyone else gets stuck or slow, unless of course we want more random variation and local knowledge to determine the order of the scoresheet. I'm more for an even playing field but I know others hold local secrets close and lobby to have Nationals held where they fly a lot - at least in part so they can gain some edge.

5) More pilots report that they prefer having more situational awareness - both for enjoyment and peace of mind - than pilots report the want less - by about 2 to 1. Pilots who don't fly contests report having some information about other pilots' locations makes them more likely to race, and the reverse is also true without this information they are less likely to try racing - OLC becomes too appealing. Given that, I'm much more in favor of waiting to see if some dire miscarriage of justice results from all of these new innovations that mostly can be available on pretty inexpensive mass-produced consumer devices that most of us already carry in our pockets.

I realize change is disquieting, particularly if you think you have some advantage under the status quo, but I don't think that's inherently a reason to try to hold back the tides of change.

My 2c.

9B

November 30th 15, 07:48 PM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:09:44 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:27:51 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> > > XC, I am afraid the future is nigh. Andrej of Naviter and Erasim of LXNav
> > > have both stated that it is their intention to integrate this intelligence
> > > into their instruments. The scenario is that the instrument will feed data
> > > into SeeYou Cloud in real time and recover useful data on thermals, hot
> > > spots, winds etc. down track for the benefit of the so equipped pilot.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

November 30th 15, 07:50 PM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:09:44 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Ugh - typos fixed.

My considered opinion on this is fivefold:

1) You can do most of this today without use of Flarm or a data connection to the ground. WinPilot has offered aggregate heat maps of thermal locations and strengths based on any number of uploaded IGC tracks, filtered for time of day, time of year, sun angle, wind direction, etc. for a decade or so.. Nobody I know uses it. You also can - with a little effort - upload BlipMap data to your flight computer to see where you are versus forecasted weather patterns (not historical weather, which is generally far less helpful when things are changing through the day). I've been doing it on paper for years. Once in a while it helps on convergence days.

2) The incremental benefit of seeing gliders in the local area outside a mile or two - all the way out to the entire contest area - doesn't matter very much at all and it won't in the future - probably not ever. Most of the time, trying to track and use Flarm thermals hurts your speed. Traditional leeching is hard enough to do, and is of limited, mostly defensive, value. The data strongly suggest that the further back you trail the less value there is and it pretty quickly turns negative. As previously mentioned - an analysis of thermal leeching shows consistently weaker climbs for gliders trailing more than a few minutes behind. You could maybe get a super-computer to try to come up with an estimate of thermal locations and strengths but subtle differences in the scene out the window (clouds, ripples on ponds, tree leaves turning up and showing a different color on a ridge line, haze domes, dust devils, cloud shadows, cirrus decks, sun on rocks, wind changes, prior experiences with all of the above) all matter so much more and don't make it into the hypothetical heat map. It is mostly out of date a minute after it is produced. Everything I ever learned about analytics, optimization and feedback systems and every single contest day I've scrutinized tells me this problem has way too little signal and way too much noise for anyone to benefit - even if you know every thermal in use or recently in use over the entire course.

3) Even a God-map of previously used thermals over the entire course did provide useful information that made more than a handful of points difference in a race it doesn't materially change the role of the pilot - which is to make tactical decisions about what course to fly and what thermals to take versus pass up - all based on highly variable, uncertain and time-sensitive information about not what is going on right now but what is likely to be going at some time and place in the future that you can actually get to in time for it to matter. More information is just information - more historical information, particularly about choices pilots made about which course to fly or thermal to take is mostly irrelevant but I see no harm in pilots trying to use it. It doesn't turn glider flying into a video game any more than a variometer or GPS do. The decision-making maybe gets a little richer, certainly not more robotic. The "head in the cockpit" argument is also bunk. Any pilot who doesn't understand how to do an instrument scan shouldn't be flying no matter what - but in particular looking at a display that is filled with a radar scope of where all the other gliders are hardly seems worse than looking outside trying to pick up maybe half or less of them with the naked eye.

4) For the odd situation where situational data does provide useful information, it mostly evens out what most pilots I know think of as luck or unfair advantages - and outcomes that the current scoring formulae devalue for that reason. On a ridge day, you will be able to discover that - well - the ridge is working, and on a wave day you'll maybe be able to discover the location of the wave so that the one or two pilots who stumble into it or have local knowledge won't run away with the day when everyone else gets stuck or slow, unless of course we want more random variation and local knowledge to determine the order of the scoresheet. I'm more for an even playing field but I know others hold local secrets close and lobby to have Nationals held where they fly a lot - at least in part so they can gain some edge.

5) More pilots report that they prefer having more situational awareness - both for enjoyment and peace of mind - than pilots report they want less - by about 2 to 1. Pilots who don't fly contests report that having information about other pilots' locations makes them more likely to race, and the reverse is also true without this information they are less likely to try racing - OLC becomes too appealing. Given that, I'm much more in favor of waiting to see if some dire miscarriage of justice results from all of these new innovations. Innovations that mostly can be available on pretty inexpensive mass-produced consumer devices that most of us already carry in our pockets.

I realize change is disquieting, particularly if you think you have some advantage under the status quo, but I don't think that's inherently a reason to try to hold back the tides of change.

My 2c.

9B

[email protected]

November 30th 15, 07:54 PM

I think that the Stealth mode vs not Stealth mode argument is just complete nonsense. If Flarm (not in Stealth mode) does provide a tactical advantage, then all pilots with Flarm equipped gliders have the same advantage. Therefore, no Flarm equipped pilot has any advantage over another Flarm equipped pilot. Assuming Flarm does provide a tactical advantage, the only people who lose are those who do not use Flarm.

P9

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 30th 15, 10:55 PM

Yeah, they made rules for checkers too not just golf! However, checkers and golf have zero correlation to gliding. You can get killed flying a glider. Plus you fly in a dynamic three dimensional space that is moving at a relative speed between 0 and 250 knots. There is weather, wind, lightening, thunderstorms, microbursts, other maneuvering gliders, fast moving aircraft, airspace ad terrain... It obvious that situational awareness is a valuable safety feature.

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:48:53 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> I'm reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield character in the movie "Caddy Shack"and his laser guided putter. Funny movie but insightful in this instance, too. Think of all the technology that could be put to use to sink a put. Indeed, there have been tons of improvements in putters over the years. There is a huge market as golfers are desperate to improve their game and be as good as the pros. (What they really need to do is practice more but who has the time.)
>
> Luckily, the golfers got together and set boundaries to preserve their sport. Some technologies were okay and some were determined to potentially change the spirit of the game. Market forces were held back.
>
> Someone saw that not only would youth golfers be unable to afford a $50k putter, they would never become youth golfers because what's the point of it all. Who wants to grow up to be like Rory McIlroy (had to look that one up) when Rodney Dangerfield can buy himself some technology and is now 90% as good?
>
> I feel unlimited use of FLARM to indicate climb rates and contest ID's in contests changes the spirit of the game. Likewise, with some of the additional FLARM enhancements which are on the way.
>
> And guys, come to think of it, we have got to start dressing more fashionably like the golfers.
>
> XC

Dave Springford

December 1st 15, 02:39 AM

Andy,

Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?

Tim Taylor

December 1st 15, 03:10 AM

Dave,

It is not rumor, they already did it to the 15M, Open and Std Nationals. The contest asked for a waver to make Flarm mandatory and the rules committee told them it would allow that if stealth mode was required as well. It appears the rules committee once again knows what is best for pilots even though the last survey does not support requiring stealth mode in contests.

This has left the contest organizers between a rock and a hard place. They can either not require Flarm or must use stealth mode. It is sad because the group at Nephi has been a leader in requiring Flarm and have been champions of the technology. Now the racing committee is using this to push an agenda that does not appear to have widespread support among pilots.

Steve Koerner

December 1st 15, 03:18 AM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?

I agree. Andy wins this argument hands down! I'd certainly be annoyed if Stealth becomes a rule or a norm. Stealth is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. As well, it is less fun.

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 03:49 AM

they already did it to the 15M, Open and Std Nationals. The contest asked for a waver to make Flarm mandatory and the rules committee told them it would allow that if stealth mode was required as well. ...
>
> This has left the contest organizers between a rock and a hard place. They can either not require Flarm or must use stealth mode.

Tim (and others in the same boat):

In my past experience at RC, waivers are a negotiation, not a hard answer. If Nephi organizers want mandatory flarm and no stealth mode, write back and say this is unacceptable. If the RC says no, and you remain unhappy, appeal to the SSA board, which is the ultimate arbiter.

Nephi is in a strong position, as the bid for the contest was made and accepted, and pilots signed up (me) with no mention of stealth mode.

It's also in a strong position, as your fallback is the heck with nationals, we'll just run a camp again. Have fun finding someone else to run three nationals.

You could also survey your pilots and see how they feel about it.

If the organizers do not want to shoulder responsibility for what they regard as compromises on safety, it is strange for the RC to force them otherwise.

When there is a midair, if any deliberate degradation of a safety device is on, be sure that whoever commanded that fact will be sued. (Leaving aside the more important tragedies of such an event.) This isn't alarmism. The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.

Down the pike, in the end, rule 9.0 allows the CD to make safety decisions. And the CD decides how to enforce rules, if you get my drift.

I will be interested to see what decisions the RC has made regarding stealth. The minutes should be out on the ssa website soon, which ought to put some fact behind these rumors.

John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)

krasw

December 1st 15, 09:40 AM

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 05:49:27 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
> The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.
>
> John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)

What? Seriously?

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 11:05 AM

Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen).
By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse.. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.

In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 1st 15, 03:19 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:05:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen)..
> By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.
>
> Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
> Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
> So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.
>
> In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.
>
> aldo cernezzi
> www.voloavela.it

WRT 9B let me add some more "lies, damn lies and statistics":

With respect to pilots who reported (on the annual poll) flying in a National contest in 2015 (63), 43% want "stealth" to be mandatory by rule. 10% want stealth to be prohibited by rule. 27% want it to be the pilot's choice, 13% the organizer's.

Again, among pilots who reported flying in a National, 34% say stealth-off "adds enjoyment" and 35% say "decreases enjoyment."

Btw, consider that when a pilot puts a tin foil hat over the FLARM antenna so as to become invisible (yes, it happens), it effectively negates any "FLARM mandatory" mandate and negatively impacts the benefits FLARM is designed to provide.

The RC is waiting for the revised definition of "Competition" mode to be released by FLARM before making a final recommendation to the SSA BOD.

QT
RC Chair

December 1st 15, 03:20 PM

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:39:20 PM UTC-5, Dave Springford wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?

I think Andy is overstating the data from the opinion poll. Everyone should look at the results again and read the comments. Anyone who is reading this discussion should also consider audience and contributors to RAS. This is a rather tech leaning group. Nothing wrong with that but it does not perfectly represent the soaring community.

The questions on FLARM are copied below. Make what you can out of them. Andy is referring to the last question in point 5 of his argument, I believe.

a) Flarm "radar" Hinders Enjoyment (in contests)- 24%
b) Flarm "radar" Enhances Enjoyment - 40%
c) Indifferent/no opinion/I haven't flown with FLARM - 34%

I don't know how you ignore the 34% who answered c) and then draw a conclusion that people are in favor of unlimited FLARM use at almost 2 to 1.

Reading the comments, I grouped the comments broadly into two groups, a) Love FLARM in contests let's use it to the fullest and b) Those who have reservations that full FLARM is the best for the sport. The latter means use stealth (competition) mode or no FLARM at all. I did not tally neutral comments like "let's see what the IGC does and match it", though that is certainly a valid opinion, too.

From the comments section: FLARM- go for it! - 23, FLARM - Stealth or no FLARM at all - 19

I hope I don't come off as argumentative, but the manufacturer of this technology has determined there was a technological need for a competition mode to their product and designed it. If there needs to be modifications to the collision warning algorithm or modifications to the parameters of the competition mode to account for Western conditions let's explore those options..

The rest of the FLARM questions from the opinion poll below.

XC

FLARM questions
With respect to FLARM at NATIONAL championships:
1) FLARM should be required equipment - 42%
2) It should be an organizer option as to whether FLARM is mandatory (like ELTs) - 23%
3) FLARM use should be left up to the individual pilot - 25%
4) FLARM should be prohibited - 2%
5) No preference - 4%
6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 2%

With respect to FLARM at REGIONAL contests:
1) FLARM should be required equipment - 21%
2) It should be an organizer option as to whether FLARM is mandatory (like ELTs) - 37%
3) FLARM should be left up to the individual pilot - 34%
4) FLARM should be prohibited - 2%
5) No preference - 3%
6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 3%

Stealth mode questions:

Background: when a FLARM is in "stealth" mode, the information it sees about other gliders, and information that other gliders can see about the stealth mode FLARM, is restricted to a short range and imminent collision threats. Call signs and climb rates are not shown. Imposing stealth mode is advocated to reduce gaggling and leeching and other tactical use of position data. Imposing stealth mode was tried at the Elmira 15 meter nationals. The nature of stealth mode is currently under review by the IGC, British Gliding Association and FLARM, aiming to improve collision alerts and minimize tactical information.

With respect to STEALTH mode in NATIONAL championships:
1) Stealth mode should be required for any FLARM - 30%
2) Stealth mode should be required/forbidden at the organizers' option -19%
3) Stealth mode should be used at the pilots' option - 24%
4) Stealth mode should be prohibited - 13%
5) No preference -11%
6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 3%

With respect to STEALTH mode in REGIONAL contests:
1) Stealth mode should be required for any FLARM - 20%
2) Stealth mode should be required/forbiden at the organizers' option - 22%
3) Stealth mode should be used at the pilots' option - 29%
4) Stealth mode should be prohibited - 17%
5) No preference - 11%
6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 2%

In your overall experience, is the use by yourself or others of FLARM to keep track of other gliders at range beyond imminent collision threats ("FLARM radar"), a feature that hinders your enjoyment of the contest, or enhances it? This is an overall question, considering safety, tactical use, the pleasure or pain of knowing where other gliders are, and anything else you feel relevant.
a) Flarm "radar" Hinders Enjoyment - 24%
b) Flarm "radar" Enhances Enjoyment - 40%
c) Indifferent/no opinion/I haven't flown with FLARM - 34%

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 03:31 PM

Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.

Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger

John cochrane bb

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 03:43 PM

> The questions on FLARM are copied below. Make what you can out of them....

And, perhaps most telling of all 2.7,

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop Rules 11%. No 85%.

Remember, this stealth mode business is all a complex undertaking to reduce leeching; the ability of one pilot to gain by following others. There are lots of ways to leech, and lots of rules to stop it, especially in the starts.

I actually thought the numbers would be much greater on this. But the verdict is loud and clear. Gaggling and leeching in US contests are not perceived to be a serious problem by 85% of the pilots.

Where is the fire?

John Cochrane BB

December 1st 15, 03:57 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:43:42 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The questions on FLARM are copied below. Make what you can out of them.....
>
> And, perhaps most telling of all 2.7,
>
> Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop Rules 11%. No 85%.
>
> Remember, this stealth mode business is all a complex undertaking to reduce leeching; the ability of one pilot to gain by following others. There are lots of ways to leech, and lots of rules to stop it, especially in the starts.
>
> I actually thought the numbers would be much greater on this. But the verdict is loud and clear. Gaggling and leeching in US contests are not perceived to be a serious problem by 85% of the pilots.
>
> Where is the fire?
>
> John Cochrane BB

When I answered that question I was answering - Should the the RC consider other rules besides FLARM to prevent leeching? I answered - no.

Saw FLARM leeching at PAGC. Poor XG couldn't get away to do his own brilliant thing. He expressed his frustrations in passing or very politely at one of the meetings.

It is not just plain leeching either. Two thermals are ahead on the first leg and marked by other competitors. The guy trailing gets to pick which has a better value and save the time of centering it. Using FLARM the guys coming from behind uses the talents of the other two and potentially does better that either.

Those are two issues I have,
XC

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 04:00 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:43:42 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The questions on FLARM are copied below. Make what you can out of them.....
>
> And, perhaps most telling of all 2.7,
>
> Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop Rules 11%. No 85%.
>
> Remember, this stealth mode business is all a complex undertaking to reduce leeching; the ability of one pilot to gain by following others. There are lots of ways to leech, and lots of rules to stop it, especially in the starts.
>
> I actually thought the numbers would be much greater on this. But the verdict is loud and clear. Gaggling and leeching in US contests are not perceived to be a serious problem by 85% of the pilots.
>
> Where is the fire?
>
> John Cochrane BB

When I answered that question I was answering - Should the the RC consider other rules besides FLARM to prevent leeching? I answered - no.

Saw FLARM leeching at PAGC. Poor XG couldn't get away to do his own brilliant thing. He expressed his frustrations in passing and very politely at one of the meetings.

It is not just plain leeching either. Two thermals are ahead on the first leg and marked by other competitors. The guy trailing gets to pick which has a better value and save the time of centering it. Using FLARM, the guy coming from behind uses the talents of the other two and potentially does better than either.

Those are two issues I have,
XC

jfitch

December 1st 15, 04:07 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:20:42 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:39:20 PM UTC-5, Dave Springford wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?
>
> I think Andy is overstating the data from the opinion poll. Everyone should look at the results again and read the comments. Anyone who is reading this discussion should also consider audience and contributors to RAS. This is a rather tech leaning group. Nothing wrong with that but it does not perfectly represent the soaring community.
>
> The questions on FLARM are copied below. Make what you can out of them. Andy is referring to the last question in point 5 of his argument, I believe..
>
> a) Flarm "radar" Hinders Enjoyment (in contests)- 24%
> b) Flarm "radar" Enhances Enjoyment - 40%
> c) Indifferent/no opinion/I haven't flown with FLARM - 34%
>
> I don't know how you ignore the 34% who answered c) and then draw a conclusion that people are in favor of unlimited FLARM use at almost 2 to 1.
>
> Reading the comments, I grouped the comments broadly into two groups, a) Love FLARM in contests let's use it to the fullest and b) Those who have reservations that full FLARM is the best for the sport. The latter means use stealth (competition) mode or no FLARM at all. I did not tally neutral comments like "let's see what the IGC does and match it", though that is certainly a valid opinion, too.
>
> From the comments section: FLARM- go for it! - 23, FLARM - Stealth or no FLARM at all - 19
>
> I hope I don't come off as argumentative, but the manufacturer of this technology has determined there was a technological need for a competition mode to their product and designed it. If there needs to be modifications to the collision warning algorithm or modifications to the parameters of the competition mode to account for Western conditions let's explore those options.
>
>
> The rest of the FLARM questions from the opinion poll below.
>
> XC
>
>
> FLARM questions
> With respect to FLARM at NATIONAL championships:
> 1) FLARM should be required equipment - 42%
> 2) It should be an organizer option as to whether FLARM is mandatory (like ELTs) - 23%
> 3) FLARM use should be left up to the individual pilot - 25%
> 4) FLARM should be prohibited - 2%
> 5) No preference - 4%
> 6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 2%
>
> With respect to FLARM at REGIONAL contests:
> 1) FLARM should be required equipment - 21%
> 2) It should be an organizer option as to whether FLARM is mandatory (like ELTs) - 37%
> 3) FLARM should be left up to the individual pilot - 34%
> 4) FLARM should be prohibited - 2%
> 5) No preference - 3%
> 6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 3%
>
>
>
> Stealth mode questions:
>
> Background: when a FLARM is in "stealth" mode, the information it sees about other gliders, and information that other gliders can see about the stealth mode FLARM, is restricted to a short range and imminent collision threats. Call signs and climb rates are not shown. Imposing stealth mode is advocated to reduce gaggling and leeching and other tactical use of position data. Imposing stealth mode was tried at the Elmira 15 meter nationals. The nature of stealth mode is currently under review by the IGC, British Gliding Association and FLARM, aiming to improve collision alerts and minimize tactical information.
>
> With respect to STEALTH mode in NATIONAL championships:
> 1) Stealth mode should be required for any FLARM - 30%
> 2) Stealth mode should be required/forbidden at the organizers' option -19%
> 3) Stealth mode should be used at the pilots' option - 24%
> 4) Stealth mode should be prohibited - 13%
> 5) No preference -11%
> 6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 3%
>
> With respect to STEALTH mode in REGIONAL contests:
> 1) Stealth mode should be required for any FLARM - 20%
> 2) Stealth mode should be required/forbiden at the organizers' option - 22%
> 3) Stealth mode should be used at the pilots' option - 29%
> 4) Stealth mode should be prohibited - 17%
> 5) No preference - 11%
> 6) Other Opinion (use 2.8 comment box) - 2%
>
> In your overall experience, is the use by yourself or others of FLARM to keep track of other gliders at range beyond imminent collision threats ("FLARM radar"), a feature that hinders your enjoyment of the contest, or enhances it? This is an overall question, considering safety, tactical use, the pleasure or pain of knowing where other gliders are, and anything else you feel relevant.
> a) Flarm "radar" Hinders Enjoyment - 24%
> b) Flarm "radar" Enhances Enjoyment - 40%
> c) Indifferent/no opinion/I haven't flown with FLARM - 34%

It is quite correct to say that "of pilots that expressed an opinion, nearly twice as many felt that Flarm enhanced enjoyment as hindered it". I am a bit alarmed that the possibility that a pilot might flagrantly violate the rules (by putting a tin foil hat on the antenna) is advanced as an argument that the rules should be changed so they don't have to cheat.

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 04:24 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.
>
> Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger
>
> John cochrane bb

The answer is yes.
I won't out the individual.
It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
UH

Dan Marotta

December 1st 15, 04:27 PM

I'd like to know how not identifying a glider by call sign or climb rate
(if I understand stealth mode) degrades safety. C'mon, people, you
sound like a bunch of evangelists.

On 12/1/2015 2:40 AM, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 05:49:27 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
>> The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.
>>
>> John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)
> What? Seriously?

--
Dan, 5J

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 04:55 PM

> > Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm?
> > John cochrane bb
>
> The answer is yes.
> I won't out the individual.
> It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
> There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
> UH

OK. I'll call and raise. Is one pilot doing one questionably useful dumb thing once sufficient to impose cumbersome rules with potential safety consequences, over the expressed preferences of the pilots? Again, worlds is a different issue, as the nature of flying there is totally different.

Is the presence of other possible ways to do stupid things, that nobody has done yet, sufficient? This is how the rule book is starting to look like federal regulations

BB

Craig Reinholt

December 1st 15, 05:10 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.
> >
> > Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger
> >
> > John cochrane bb
>
> The answer is yes.
> I won't out the individual.
> It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
> There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
> UH

UH,
This pilot has been banded from future sanctioned SSA events under 12.2.5.1 (unsafe operation) or 12.2.5.3(unsportsmanlike conduct) rules. Correct?
Craig

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 1st 15, 05:13 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I'd like to know how not identifying a glider by call sign or climb
> rate (if I understand stealth mode) degrades safety.* C'mon, people,
> you sound like a bunch of evangelists.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/1/2015 2:40 AM, krasw wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 05:49:27 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>
> The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.
>
> John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)
>
>
> What? Seriously?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Hey Dan,

Some context and explanation.

I can't imagine a scenario where the Flarm climb data (which is mostly hash anyway) would be helpful - but of course you never can totally predict what happens when you turn things off.

The Flarm ID (or preferably FlarmNet Contest ID which is easier and faster for pilots to remember and call) is useful in head-to-head situations - and especially head-to-head agains multiple glider "bomber formations" that happen frequently in contests where you have lift lines that concentrate traffic. It also happens ridge flying (how many times have I gone between two gliders flying ridge tasks - multiple times per day in a big contest). It's a pretty significant scenario for which there is no consistent procedure to de-conflict every variation on the theme. A radio call to something specific helps a lot: "9B will pass between 5J and XC" or "9B will pass below 5J and above XC". This is a specific and common scenario. Ask Ramy - being able to ID and call the other guy helps a lot - better than making a "roll the dice" maneuver and crossing your fingers.

No one would seriously suggest we take the flight numbers off an ATC display. "Hey everybody this is Salt Lake Center - it looks like two aircraft are about to collide on the Victor 6, ten miles east of the Ogden VOR" Yes, ATC in the national airspace typically works quite differently than Flarm in glider contests, but there is an ATC-like scenario in this case.

Normally, and with enough lead time, you can sort things out without needing to make a call - multiple converging gliders in spread formation require more lead time and an ability to coordinate in case one of the other guys does something unexpected ('cuz _I_ always do exactly what I expected me to do and _I_ never panic). ;-)

9B

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 1st 15, 05:18 PM

Perhaps the SSA, Race Committee and contest organizers are missing an even larger and more powerful argument. Public policy and legal liability. The law tries to do the right thing and public policy always comes down on making things safer within readily available technological and economic bounds.. We with fly state of the art gliders made of carbon fiber and Kevlar costing upwards of a quarter million dollars. They have computers that manage the flight regime from navigation to how far they can glide to telling us what the air outside the glider is doing in real time. These gliders have Flarm which is a powerful situational awareness tool and safety feature. Now we seek to limit the situational awareness provided, not because of any empirical data and not because of overwhelming opinion of the pilots whose safety is directly effected.

Continuing the argument, Nephi has conducted a well attended no accident contest (yes, I know it is OLC but try to explain that to a jury) for the last two years, setting tasks and posting the results and requiring Flarm. For the 2016 Nationals in Nephi the SSA has mandated Flarm, but intentional and with forethought, decreased the safety and situational awareness provided by the available and mandated technology. If there is an accident with mandated Stealth mode, the SSA, RC and contest organizers will face severe damages and possibly punitive damages for intentional negligence. A prosecutor wanting to make a name for (him/her)self could even bring criminal charges for depraved indifference to the policy makers that limited the effectiveness of the required safety equipment. Kind of difficult to successfully defend.
Just saying and hope a little more thought goes into this decision. Mandating stealth coupled with a tragic accident might very well change the face of this sport and would certainly bankrupt the policy makers on a corporate and personal level.

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 7:49:27 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> they already did it to the 15M, Open and Std Nationals. The contest asked for a waver to make Flarm mandatory and the rules committee told them it would allow that if stealth mode was required as well. ...
> >
> > This has left the contest organizers between a rock and a hard place. They can either not require Flarm or must use stealth mode.
>
> Tim (and others in the same boat):
>
> In my past experience at RC, waivers are a negotiation, not a hard answer.. If Nephi organizers want mandatory flarm and no stealth mode, write back and say this is unacceptable. If the RC says no, and you remain unhappy, appeal to the SSA board, which is the ultimate arbiter.
>
> Nephi is in a strong position, as the bid for the contest was made and accepted, and pilots signed up (me) with no mention of stealth mode.
>
> It's also in a strong position, as your fallback is the heck with nationals, we'll just run a camp again. Have fun finding someone else to run three nationals.
>
> You could also survey your pilots and see how they feel about it.
>
> If the organizers do not want to shoulder responsibility for what they regard as compromises on safety, it is strange for the RC to force them otherwise.
>
> When there is a midair, if any deliberate degradation of a safety device is on, be sure that whoever commanded that fact will be sued. (Leaving aside the more important tragedies of such an event.) This isn't alarmism. The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.
>
> Down the pike, in the end, rule 9.0 allows the CD to make safety decisions. And the CD decides how to enforce rules, if you get my drift.
>
> I will be interested to see what decisions the RC has made regarding stealth. The minutes should be out on the ssa website soon, which ought to put some fact behind these rumors.
>
> John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 1st 15, 05:52 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:

> Saw FLARM leeching at PAGC. Poor XG couldn't get away to do his own brilliant thing. He expressed his frustrations in passing and very politely at one of the meetings.

I looked at the traces from this race - a couple of days every thermal for every pilot on course. The only guys I could see following XG were his teammates - I assume this was team flying, but maybe that was prohibited? In any case they fell off his trail after a few climbs.

>
> It is not just plain leeching either. Two thermals are ahead on the first leg and marked by other competitors. The guy trailing gets to pick which has a better value and save the time of centering it. Using FLARM, the guy coming from behind uses the talents of the other two and potentially does better than either.

The data just doesn't support the reality of this claim - the VAST majority of the time the climbs achieved by later arrivals decline materially. I'm sure there are occasional cases where it takes you 4, 5, 6 turns to catch the core and annoying to have someone come in right below you and climb with you, but generally using someone else's thermals is a losing proposition - and you can't really pick the ones where the other guy "just found the core after a struggle and will safe you some effort". It's far, far more likely that the strong part of the thermal has passed you buy if you ar trailing by more than a mile or two.

I'll go grind through more contest traces, but I was startled at what a poor proposition "borrowing" thermals is from a long trail position.

Looking forward to flying with you at Nephi - hope you come. You know it'll be fun. We can discuss the various merits of Flarm over beers (I'll be hiding mine though - ;-) )

9B

James Metcalfe

December 1st 15, 06:00 PM

At 00:07 30 November 2015, jfitch wrote:
>It seemed as though (2) was being offered as an explanation for
(1). If not because of the difference between track and heading,
then why? I am still curious why you get these and I don't (nor
anyone else I know), and never
>have, aren't you? Perhaps we can learn something here. My
experience is all with PowerFlarm, different algorithm? Better GPS?
All the warnings I have
>ever gotten in thermals where someone right ahead or right
behind, or turning the other direction.

Perhaps it is a difference between Flarm and Powerflarm, although
I would be surprised if they were using different algorithms. As for
my curiosity, I had not (until your comments) come across a view
different from my own (about the incessant false collision alerts
while thermalling). Note the recent coincidental post at
http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=50680&vt=
(BTW the poster is unknown to me!)
J.

Jim White[_3_]

December 1st 15, 06:01 PM

At 16:27 01 December 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>I'd like to know how not identifying a glider by call sign or climb rate
>(if I understand stealth mode) degrades safety. C'mon, people, you
>sound like a bunch of evangelists.
>
It doesn't. As I understand from the documentation Stealth mode does not
change what is transmitted, only how the receiver displays it. Alarms are
fully functional at all times.

Why must people persist the myth that it cripples alarms?

BTW it would be possible to prove that a glider equipped with mandatory
Flarm was preventing it from transmitting data with tin foil by examining
the Flarm igc files or simply seeing them disappear on the Flarm tracker.

Jim

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 06:14 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:10:53 PM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.
> > >
> > > Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger
> > >
> > > John cochrane bb
> >
> > The answer is yes.
> > I won't out the individual.
> > It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
> > There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
> > UH
>
> UH,
> This pilot has been banded from future sanctioned SSA events under 12.2.5.1 (unsafe operation) or 12.2.5.3(unsportsmanlike conduct) rules. Correct?
> Craig

I'm doubtful that the person you refer to did this.
UH

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 06:21 PM

There is too much rumor going on here. I think it's time for the RC to post its minutes, or at least a public statement of what the proposed stealth policy is going to be for 2016.

The standard procedure is: RC posts minutes, then posts proposed rules changes. Pilots are invited to comment to RC and to SSA. Rules are official when voted on by SSA at BOD. And not before.

I just cannot fathom what is going on by the statement reported here that RC has imposed stealth on Nephi 2016. Stealth is not part of the current 2015 rules. The proposed stealth rule has not been made public, commented on, or voted on by SSA. So RC simply has no right to impose a new rule on Nephi. If Nephi asked for a waiver for mandatory flarm, RC can say yes or no, but not add new made up rules.

Perhaps RC issued a warning, hey, we're recommending stealth for 2016? That would make sense at least.

Normally timing of such things is RC's business, but the number of leaks and rumors spreading around here suggests it's time to go public.

John Cochrane BB

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 1st 15, 07:28 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> At 16:27 01 December 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >I'd like to know how not identifying a glider by call sign or climb rate
> >(if I understand stealth mode) degrades safety. C'mon, people, you
> >sound like a bunch of evangelists.
> >
> It doesn't. As I understand from the documentation Stealth mode does not
> change what is transmitted, only how the receiver displays it. Alarms are
> fully functional at all times.

Not 100% correct (and it matters a bit for head-to-head, especially in multi-ship scenarios). The Flarm Configuration manual 1.02 dated August 4, 2015 states that even with alarms active you won't get a FlarmID or FlarmNet ID - so you won't be able to call the other glider(s) to make sure that they don't "zig" when you "zag". You won't have any information before 2 km unless they are headed more or less right at you - so no way to avoid them UNTIL they become a collision threat, which can surprise you with as little as 10-12 second to go. Needs to be addressed.

Reference:

http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FTD-14-FLARM-Configuration-Specification-1.02.pdf

Flarm is not TCAS, which gives Resolution Advisories to orchestrate between the targets which way to go to avoid each other. Flarm doesn't do this. The pilots have to assess and work cooperatively to ensure this - sometimes you can do that at a distance by taking a decidedly different track and hoping the other guy observes this and doesn't null out your adjustment (zig-zag-bang), sometimes a radio call can (and has) helped. These are scenarios that happen with some regularity.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 1st 15, 07:49 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:10:53 AM UTC-8, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> UH,
> This pilot has been banded from future sanctioned SSA events under 12.2.5..1 (unsafe operation) or 12.2.5.3(unsportsmanlike conduct) rules. Correct?
> Craig

The question is - is it enforceable? Flarm range is variable enough as it is - egregious use with other gliders in close proximity where range isn't an issue might be demonstrated.

Beyond the safety implications - I think it is of limited tactical use and I suspect pilots who expend energy on this are distracting themselves from more important issues of racing. Constantly looking over you shoulder is hardly a winning mindset. There's a lot of paranoia in racing about the effectiveness of leeching and tactics to escape leeching (specifically, 15% of pilots in the poll).

Maybe the foil hats should go on people's heads so they don't steal your thoughts? ;-)

9B

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 07:55 PM

Ron Gleason

December 1st 15, 08:26 PM

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:18:11 UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> Continuing the argument, Nephi has conducted a well attended no accident contest (yes, I know it is OLC but try to explain that to a jury) for the last two years, setting tasks and posting the results and requiring Flarm. For the 2016 Nationals in Nephi the SSA has mandated Flarm, but intentional and with forethought, decreased the safety and situational awareness provided by the available and mandated technology.

As one of the organizes for the 2016 Nephi Nationals I would like to set the record straight.

1) There have been 3 years of OLC events in Nephi and in 2014 there was also a SSA sanctioned regional competition.

2) We, the organizers, submitted a waiver request to the SSA competition and rules committee to have Power Flarm Mandatory. This is the actual request that was submittted

PowerFlarm mandatory

Request - Make PowerFlarm (PF) mandatory for all gliders flying within the contest. As far as PF mode is concerned we would leave it in open or standard mode.

Reasoning - Safety. The last 3 years PF has been mandatory at the Nephi based OLC/XC camps with very positive feedback. Also many of the gliders that flew in the 2014 Region 9 contest utilized PF in standard mode with positive comments. The second aspect of safety pertains to the TCAS functionality provided by PF.

Response from the waiver request - Waiver is granted. It was the decision of the Rules Committee that for 2016 National contests, any Flarm use shall be in stealth mode

There was more in the response but I believe it is best for that to come out in meeting minutes published by them.

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 15, 09:20 PM

>
> Response from the waiver request - Waiver is granted. It was the decision of the Rules Committee that for 2016 National contests, any Flarm use shall be in stealth mode
>

Finally, something makes sense. So, Nephi has a waiver to make flarm mandatory. The RC lets nephi know that it is recommending a new rule that stealth will be mandatory for all nationals. Nothing special for Nephi, and sensible of RC to warn Nephi.

Now we can go on with the regular process. RC will release minutes and proposed rules. Pilots can comment to RC and their regional directors. SSA BOD will or not approve the rules.

And contests that don't like new rules can ask for waivers of those rules, especially contests that put in bids before the rules were changed.

John Cochrane BB

jfitch

December 1st 15, 09:24 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:52:39 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Saw FLARM leeching at PAGC. Poor XG couldn't get away to do his own brilliant thing. He expressed his frustrations in passing and very politely at one of the meetings.
>
> I looked at the traces from this race - a couple of days every thermal for every pilot on course. The only guys I could see following XG were his teammates - I assume this was team flying, but maybe that was prohibited? In any case they fell off his trail after a few climbs.
>
> >
> > It is not just plain leeching either. Two thermals are ahead on the first leg and marked by other competitors. The guy trailing gets to pick which has a better value and save the time of centering it. Using FLARM, the guy coming from behind uses the talents of the other two and potentially does better than either.
>
> The data just doesn't support the reality of this claim - the VAST majority of the time the climbs achieved by later arrivals decline materially. I'm sure there are occasional cases where it takes you 4, 5, 6 turns to catch the core and annoying to have someone come in right below you and climb with you, but generally using someone else's thermals is a losing proposition - and you can't really pick the ones where the other guy "just found the core after a struggle and will safe you some effort". It's far, far more likely that the strong part of the thermal has passed you buy if you ar trailing by more than a mile or two.
>
> I'll go grind through more contest traces, but I was startled at what a poor proposition "borrowing" thermals is from a long trail position.
>
> Looking forward to flying with you at Nephi - hope you come. You know it'll be fun. We can discuss the various merits of Flarm over beers (I'll be hiding mine though - ;-) )
>
> 9B

Andy, I hate it when you bring data to an argument. I suggest that at Nephi, the field be randomly split between stealth and non-stealth mode. It's probably enough gliders to have a valid experiment. Since the theory behind leeching is that it speeds up the slow pilots while not slowing down the fast ones, the aggregate score of the non-steath group should be statistically higher than the stealth group. That could be further refined by looking at the bottom half in each group (presumably, leechers). According the stealth supporters, there is no difference in safety so there should be no objection on that account. Since the fast pilots are going to win anyway (and are not leechers), they should not object to which group they draw.

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 09:43 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Saw FLARM leeching at PAGC. Poor XG couldn't get away to do his own brilliant thing. He expressed his frustrations in passing and very politely at one of the meetings.
>
> I looked at the traces from this race - a couple of days every thermal for every pilot on course. The only guys I could see following XG were his teammates - I assume this was team flying, but maybe that was prohibited? In any case they fell off his trail after a few climbs.
>
> >
> > It is not just plain leeching either. Two thermals are ahead on the first leg and marked by other competitors. The guy trailing gets to pick which has a better value and save the time of centering it. Using FLARM, the guy coming from behind uses the talents of the other two and potentially does better than either.
>
> The data just doesn't support the reality of this claim - the VAST majority of the time the climbs achieved by later arrivals decline materially. I'm sure there are occasional cases where it takes you 4, 5, 6 turns to catch the core and annoying to have someone come in right below you and climb with you, but generally using someone else's thermals is a losing proposition - and you can't really pick the ones where the other guy "just found the core after a struggle and will safe you some effort". It's far, far more likely that the strong part of the thermal has passed you buy if you ar trailing by more than a mile or two.
>
> I'll go grind through more contest traces, but I was startled at what a poor proposition "borrowing" thermals is from a long trail position.
>
> Looking forward to flying with you at Nephi - hope you come. You know it'll be fun. We can discuss the various merits of Flarm over beers (I'll be hiding mine though - ;-) )
>
> 9B

No worries I'll be there. I am very much looking forward to flying at a beautiful place like Nephi. Looking forward to the beers, too. Let's make sure we don't talk only about FLARM though...
XC

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 1st 15, 09:59 PM

Another important consideration is the non-contest pilot. Perhaps someone flying out of a nearby airport will be in some of the same airspace as the contest pilots. These pilots flying with Flarm have purchased a Flarm with the expectation of more situational awareness. Now they encounter a mass of sailplanes flying with Farm limited by stealth mode. By mandating stealth you have essentially taken some of the situational awareness thus safety from a pilot that has not agreed to these conditions.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 1st 15, 10:01 PM

The RC, SSA and contest organizers may want to get a legal opinion before agreeing to Stealth Mode on all contestants Flarms.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:26:42 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:18:11 UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > Continuing the argument, Nephi has conducted a well attended no accident contest (yes, I know it is OLC but try to explain that to a jury) for the last two years, setting tasks and posting the results and requiring Flarm. For the 2016 Nationals in Nephi the SSA has mandated Flarm, but intentional and with forethought, decreased the safety and situational awareness provided by the available and mandated technology.
>
> As one of the organizes for the 2016 Nephi Nationals I would like to set the record straight.
>
> 1) There have been 3 years of OLC events in Nephi and in 2014 there was also a SSA sanctioned regional competition.
>
> 2) We, the organizers, submitted a waiver request to the SSA competition and rules committee to have Power Flarm Mandatory. This is the actual request that was submittted
>
> PowerFlarm mandatory
>
> Request - Make PowerFlarm (PF) mandatory for all gliders flying within the contest. As far as PF mode is concerned we would leave it in open or standard mode.
>
> Reasoning - Safety. The last 3 years PF has been mandatory at the Nephi based OLC/XC camps with very positive feedback. Also many of the gliders that flew in the 2014 Region 9 contest utilized PF in standard mode with positive comments. The second aspect of safety pertains to the TCAS functionality provided by PF.
>
> Response from the waiver request - Waiver is granted. It was the decision of the Rules Committee that for 2016 National contests, any Flarm use shall be in stealth mode
>
> There was more in the response but I believe it is best for that to come out in meeting minutes published by them.

[email protected]

December 1st 15, 10:06 PM

In the tradition of lies, damned lies, and statistics, I see that a plurality of pilots in the Opinion poll supported making stealth mode mandatory for Nationals--30% (vs. 19% organizer choice, 24% pilot choice, and 13% stealth prohibited). So instead of disenfranchising anyone, the Rules Committee appears (without knowing the back story) to have responded to pilots' preferences.

I strongly suspect that if the responses were broken down into those who had flown a stealth-mode-mandatory contest vs. those who had not, the results would have been much more lopsided in favor of mandatory stealth. I've done both and much preferred mandatory stealth mode. My sense of the Elmira nats where it was mandatory was that most pilots thought it worked very well, but that's an unscientific opinion.

The percentage of pilots who support prohibiting stealth mode ranges from 13% (at nationals) to 17% (at regionals). It seems logical that if you're really opposed to stealth for safety instead of tactical reasons, you should be strongly opposed to stealth being allowed OR mandated, and that didn't come out.

So on a tactical basis, regarding whether leeching works, I respect Andy's analytical approach studying past data when he says leeching doesn't pay off. But based on experience, I would offer that this tactic is like anything else in soaring (or life): i.e., it's no panacea. Some pilots really know how to use it, even to the point of being able to win national contests. Others are less skilled. I can say for certain that it's very frustrating to take your turns leading out or to fly by yourself when you have the courage of your convictions and then have a top pilot sweep into your thermal closely followed by half a dozen leeches who are focused so grimly on keeping him in sight that they barely acknowledge your existence. Indeed, I've had to take evasive action when the trailing pilot(s) didn't see me.

So, yes, leeching works for some. And FLARM makes it easier to leech. The reason it doesn't effect top pilots most of the time is that they're better than the rest of us and don't need it. Duh. It's middle-of-the-pack pilots who want to place high but don't want to fly their own flights who can benefit.

To be completely honest, leeching using FLARM probably enhances safety compared with leeching based on eyeballing because it gives everyone a better view of other gliders. But that's like saying that tailgating a fast-moving car on the freeway at 80 mph is safer with one of the new automatic emergency braking systems or self-driving cars than by driving manually. You shouldn't be doing it either way.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Andrzej Kobus

December 1st 15, 10:27 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:26:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:18:11 UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > Continuing the argument, Nephi has conducted a well attended no accident contest (yes, I know it is OLC but try to explain that to a jury) for the last two years, setting tasks and posting the results and requiring Flarm. For the 2016 Nationals in Nephi the SSA has mandated Flarm, but intentional and with forethought, decreased the safety and situational awareness provided by the available and mandated technology.
>
> As one of the organizes for the 2016 Nephi Nationals I would like to set the record straight.
>
> 1) There have been 3 years of OLC events in Nephi and in 2014 there was also a SSA sanctioned regional competition.
>
> 2) We, the organizers, submitted a waiver request to the SSA competition and rules committee to have Power Flarm Mandatory. This is the actual request that was submittted
>
> PowerFlarm mandatory
>
> Request - Make PowerFlarm (PF) mandatory for all gliders flying within the contest. As far as PF mode is concerned we would leave it in open or standard mode.
>
> Reasoning - Safety. The last 3 years PF has been mandatory at the Nephi based OLC/XC camps with very positive feedback. Also many of the gliders that flew in the 2014 Region 9 contest utilized PF in standard mode with positive comments. The second aspect of safety pertains to the TCAS functionality provided by PF.
>
> Response from the waiver request - Waiver is granted. It was the decision of the Rules Committee that for 2016 National contests, any Flarm use shall be in stealth mode
>
> There was more in the response but I believe it is best for that to come out in meeting minutes published by them.

Hmm, I wonder what will happen when I show up with an ADS-B out. My new glider is equipped with a certified ADS-B out unit, probably first such installation in a glider in US. I will see all transponder traffic including gliders miles ahead and so will everyone else around me who has PowerFlarm installed. There will be plenty of transponder equipped gliders at Nephi. Will RC ban me from contests? Stealth mode will not be worth much then. Time to move on with times or maybe RC will ask me to get the ADS-B out of my glider, hmm can you imagine that...

Jim White[_3_]

December 1st 15, 10:42 PM

At 21:59 01 December 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Another important consideration is the non-contest pilot. Perhaps
someone
>=
>flying out of a nearby airport will be in some of the same airspace as
the
>=
>contest pilots. These pilots flying with Flarm have purchased a Flarm
>with=
> the expectation of more situational awareness. Now they encounter a
mass
>=
>of sailplanes flying with Farm limited by stealth mode. By mandating
>steal=
>th you have essentially taken some of the situational awareness thus
>safety=
> from a pilot that has not agreed to these conditions.
>
Simply not true

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 05:06 AM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:06:59 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> In the tradition of lies, damned lies, and statistics, I see that a plurality of pilots in the Opinion poll supported making stealth mode mandatory for Nationals--30% (vs. 19% organizer choice, 24% pilot choice, and 13% stealth prohibited). So instead of disenfranchising anyone, the Rules Committee appears (without knowing the back story) to have responded to pilots' preferences.
>

Hey Chip,

Hope you come to Nephi! I think the last time we flew together was the first "Big Ridge" contest day at New Castle in 1983 - 469 miles. I know Mark was there because he was flying Standard Class.

There is a slightly different interpretation I put on the data. How many want Stealth mode mandatory versus not mandatory. Pilot choice is definitely NOT mandated, as is stealth banned (obviously). I'd put organizer choice more on the not mandated than mandated, but even if you put it aside you get 30% for mandatory and 37% percent for no stealth or the original concept form Flarm - stealth at the pilot's option.

That's for Nationals - Regionals was definitely far more in favor of openness.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 05:15 AM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:.
>
> Hmm, I wonder what will happen when I show up with an ADS-B out. My new glider is equipped with a certified ADS-B out unit, probably first such installation in a glider in US. I will see all transponder traffic including gliders miles ahead and so will everyone else around me who has PowerFlarm installed. There will be plenty of transponder equipped gliders at Nephi. Will RC ban me from contests? Stealth mode will not be worth much then. Time to move on with times or maybe RC will ask me to get the ADS-B out of my glider, hmm can you imagine that...

Well, that puts two flies in the ointment. One is that you can't, by FAR, turn off your ADS-B Out if it is part of your transponder - 1090ES Out. If you have one installed, the FAA requires it to be on. The second is that anyone else flying at Nephi with a transponder installed is required by FAR to turn it on. If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.

I will be interested to see what the resolution of the traffic information is. I can't wait so see your installation.

Congrats on being the first I know of to get this done.

9B

Mike Schumann[_2_]

December 2nd 15, 05:38 AM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:15:46 PM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:.
> >
> > Hmm, I wonder what will happen when I show up with an ADS-B out. My new glider is equipped with a certified ADS-B out unit, probably first such installation in a glider in US. I will see all transponder traffic including gliders miles ahead and so will everyone else around me who has PowerFlarm installed. There will be plenty of transponder equipped gliders at Nephi. Will RC ban me from contests? Stealth mode will not be worth much then. Time to move on with times or maybe RC will ask me to get the ADS-B out of my glider, hmm can you imagine that...
>
> Well, that puts two flies in the ointment. One is that you can't, by FAR, turn off your ADS-B Out if it is part of your transponder - 1090ES Out. If you have one installed, the FAA requires it to be on. The second is that anyone else flying at Nephi with a transponder installed is required by FAR to turn it on. If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.
>
> I will be interested to see what the resolution of the traffic information is. I can't wait so see your installation.
>
> Congrats on being the first I know of to get this done.
>
> 9B

I am expecting the delivery of my Phoenix Motorglider in January. It will be equipped with a Dynon Skyview system, including ADS-B IN and 1090ES ADS-B OUT. I am installing an extra battery so the system will be fully operational during soaring flight. This system will let me see not only other ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft, but also ALL other Mode C and Mode S transponder equipped aircraft that are visible by ATC (assuming I am in range of a ADS-B ground station). Virtually every other Phoenix that has been delivered in the US in the last year or so has this avionics setup.

As ADS-B OUT becomes more and more economical (Dynon has announced a 2020 compliant ADS-B OUT GPS source for under $600), it is only a question of time before the FAA will mandate that all aircraft, including gliders, UAVs, Balloons, etc.. be equipped with ADS-B OUT beacons. That will make this stealth mode argument totally moot.

Tim Welles

December 2nd 15, 05:37 PM

Is FLARM helpful?

Yes, it significantly enhances situational awareness of conflicting or potentially conflicting Flarm equipped glider traffic.

Yes, it gives you a way to stay connected with your friends, if that is what you want to do.

But, often there is too much traffic information, especially in thermal gaggles.

But, it can enhance leeching in the contest environment, which means more gaggles.

But, interpreting Flarm traffic information requires significant head-in-the-cockpit time.

My Experience:

I was involved in a mid-air at Parowan in 2010. Most certainly, had the two gliders been Flarm equipped, the mid-air would not have happened.

Flarm is extremely helpful in identifying potential traffic conflicts, especially head-on traffic that if difficult to see. It has helped me comfortably avoid head-on traffic a number of times.

In thermals, I find the Flarm alarms to be quite an overload and quite unusable. I revert to my eyeballs for traffic avoidance.

Interpreting Flarm traffic information on in-cockpit devices is very difficult without diverting undue attention inside. The audio alarms on the ClearNav ("Traffic, one o'clock low") help this situation significantly.

Flarm enhances situational awareness; it does not replace visual see and avoid.

Stealth mode is entirely adequate as Flarm threats are not inhibited. Stealth worked fine at Elmira. It seemed to reduce the information overload significantly and de-cluttered the traffic situational awareness picture.. Stealth does not eliminate leeching which will always occur in weak conditions, but I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. I think this is in the best interest of the sport.

My personal conclusion and recommendation:

Make Flarm mandatory in US soaring contests
Make stealth mode mandatory in National contests
If a site has specific reasons where stealth may not be advisable (ridge and convergence lines, for example), deal with that by waiver

Tim Welles W3

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 06:42 PM

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:15:46 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.
>

Correction: Here are the details of TIS-B services for aircraft with ADS-B Out and an ADS-B ground station in range - which is pretty much everywhere in the continental US once you're above a couple thousand feet. I believe aircraft with ADS-B In, but not properly-configured ADS-B Out, will be able to receive TIS-B traffic information including traffic with UAT and 1090ES ADS-B Out as well as transponder-equipped radar targets, so long as they are in range of a ground station that is broadcasting to any aircraft that does have properly configured ASD-B Out to request TIS-B services - which is to say you can "listen in" on TIS-B traffic rebroadcasts meant for another aircraft - it'll just be traffic in a 15 nm radius around them, not you.

I think that means that if you are flying near Andrzej you'll see everything he sees - but I need to check what Flarm will put on the dataport and whether there is anything special about TIS-B traffic packets that would cause them not to be passed along by Flarm.

I thought it would be another year or two before these installations started showing up.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/library/media/getSmart_ADSB.pdf

Relevant passage:
Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B): This air traffic advisory service provides
the altitude, ground track, speed and distance of aircraft flying in radar contact with controllers and within a 15-nautical-mile (nm) radius, up to 3,500 feet above or below the receiving aircraft's position. It can be received on both UAT and 1090 MHz. A general aviation aircraft equipped with ADS-B In can also receive position data directly from other aircraft broadcasting on the same ADS-B Out frequency. In addition, TIS-B enables pilots to see aircraft equipped with transponders flying nearby even if those aircraft are not equipped with ADS-B Out.

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 06:51 PM

Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?

John Cochrane BB

Bob Whelan[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 08:12 PM

> Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and
> leeching are big problems.

Not being a contest pilot, I have no horse in this race, but - this being
northern winter! - one possible interpretation for the overwhelming 85% of
contest pilots who don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems (were
the two activities lumped in a single poll question?), is maybe 85% of contest
pilots are trying to leech! Just a thought... :)

Bob - snow on the ground here - W.

Papa3[_2_]

December 2nd 15, 08:21 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.

>
>
> You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "
>
> First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.
>
> Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?
>
>
> John Cochrane BB

Steve Koerner

December 2nd 15, 09:02 PM

I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.

As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.

We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure.. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

December 2nd 15, 09:19 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Tim:
>
> You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)
>
> You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.
>
> You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "
>
> First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.
>
> Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?
>
>
> John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite cable of making a legitimate argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll.

XC

December 2nd 15, 09:23 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Tim:
>
> You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)
>
> You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.
>
> You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "
>
> First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.
>
> Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?
>
>
> John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go, "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite capable of making a legitimate, logical argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll or scare people with the threat of legal action to make your point.

XC

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 09:34 PM

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 2nd 15, 09:42 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
>
> Erik Mann
> Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
>

Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

[email protected]

December 2nd 15, 09:48 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> >
> > Erik Mann
> > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> >
>
> Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.
>
> But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may unreasonably think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Andrzej Kobus

December 2nd 15, 09:49 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed.. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.
>
> As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.
>
> We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

This is a great point Steve.

The reason I installed ADS-B out/in is because I want to be around for my family. I like flying in contests but if it means degrading my safety I will rather go for a soaring vacation instead.

[email protected]

December 2nd 15, 09:52 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> >
> > Erik Mann
> > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> >
>
> Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:
>
> "It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"
>
> From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.
>
> People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.
>
> Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.
>
> 9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

December 2nd 15, 10:07 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> >
> > Erik Mann
> > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> >
>
> Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.
>
> But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of stealth is such an application of technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

[email protected]

December 2nd 15, 10:16 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> >
> > Erik Mann
> > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> >
>
> Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.
>
> But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

December 2nd 15, 10:22 PM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> >
> > Erik Mann
> > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> >
>
> Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.
>
> But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 2nd 15, 11:57 PM

Dear XC:

With all due respect life is more worthwhile than what YOU deem "the spirit of the sport" while flying a glider costing over $100,000 made of the the most advanced composite materials and utilizing the most advance low speed aerodynamics on the planet. Your glider or those also in "the spirit of the sport" have flight computers that can keep track of arrival hight and l/d to arrive for all airports, those computers tell you how fast to fly between thermals, will tell you the time to complete a task given the McCready setting, will tell you where airspace is both in the vertical and horizontal plane. These computers will warn you if your airbrakes or open, if you forget to lower your landing gear, they will show you photos of the airport you have selected they can tell you your height both in AGL and MSL... Some of these gliders that by your argument still have the correct "spirit of the sport" have engines, some have jet engines, other can launch themselves, this is still in the spirit of the sport but anti-collision not muted to 2 km takes away the spirit? Your "spirit of the sport" idea is seriously warped and does not stand to simple logic. Advanced computers fine, advanced aerodynamics fine, engines fine, seeing all the traffic that can kill you bad.

Maybe the 1-26 association and the vintage glider association would better provide the spirit you want to preserve.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:22:52 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.
>
> The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.
>
> XC

[email protected]

December 3rd 15, 01:01 AM

[email protected]

December 3rd 15, 01:20 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:57:03 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Dear XC:
>
> With all due respect life is more worthwhile than what YOU deem "the spirit of the sport" while flying a glider costing over $100,000 made of the the most advanced composite materials and utilizing the most advance low speed aerodynamics on the planet. Your glider or those also in "the spirit of the sport" have flight computers that can keep track of arrival hight and l/d to arrive for all airports, those computers tell you how fast to fly between thermals, will tell you the time to complete a task given the McCready setting, will tell you where airspace is both in the vertical and horizontal plane. These computers will warn you if your airbrakes or open, if you forget to lower your landing gear, they will show you photos of the airport you have selected they can tell you your height both in AGL and MSL... Some of these gliders that by your argument still have the correct "spirit of the sport" have engines, some have jet engines, other can launch themselves, this is still in the spirit of the sport but anti-collision not muted to 2 km takes away the spirit? Your "spirit of the sport" idea is seriously warped and does not stand to simple logic. Advanced computers fine, advanced aerodynamics fine, engines fine, seeing all the traffic that can kill you bad.
>
> Maybe the 1-26 association and the vintage glider association would better provide the spirit you want to preserve.
>
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:22:52 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.
> >
> > The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.
> >
> > XC

Okay, my take on spirit of the sport is different than yours. Please take a moment to tell us what your take is? What are we comparing when we race? What qualities in a glider pilot are worthy of peer recognition?
XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 3rd 15, 02:11 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> > >
> > > Erik Mann
> > > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> > >
> >
> > Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:
> >
> > "It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"
> >
> > From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.
> >
> > People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.
> >
> > Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:
>
> "To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."
>
> This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.
>
> XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

December 3rd 15, 02:41 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> > > >
> > > > Erik Mann
> > > > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:
> > >
> > > "It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"
> > >
> > > From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.
> > >
> > > People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.
> > >
> > > Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.
> > >
> > > 9B
> >
> > Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:
> >
> > "To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."
> >
> > This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.
> >
> > XC
>
> Hey Sean,
>
> Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.
>
> The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.
>
> I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.
>
> 9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

Andrzej Kobus

December 3rd 15, 02:57 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> > > > >
> > > > > Erik Mann
> > > > > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:
> > > >
> > > > "It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"
> > > >
> > > > From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.
> > > >
> > > > People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.
> > > >
> > > > 9B
> > >
> > > Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:
> > >
> > > "To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."
> > >
> > > This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.
> > >
> > > XC
> >
> > Hey Sean,
> >
> > Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.
> >
> > The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.
> >
> > I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.
> >
> > 9B
>
> The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.
>
> I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.
>
> XC

In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
What about here?

December 3rd 15, 03:19 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:57:17 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > > > I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Erik Mann
> > > > > > Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"
> > > > >
> > > > > From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it.. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 9B
> > > >
> > > > Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:
> > > >
> > > > "To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."
> > > >
> > > > This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.
> > > >
> > > > XC
> > >
> > > Hey Sean,
> > >
> > > Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.
> > >
> > > The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.
> > >
> > > I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.
> > >
> > > 9B
> >
> > The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.
> >
> > I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.
> >
> > XC
>
> In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
> What about here?

The assumption here is that ADS-B will be mandatory for gliders. It is not included to be mandatory at this time. I am not 100% sure of this but someone out there will clarify I'm sure.

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 3rd 15, 04:01 AM

> Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.
>
> XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

jfitch

December 3rd 15, 07:12 AM

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.
> >
> > XC
>
> The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.
>
> The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.
>
> John Cochrane BB

It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?

December 3rd 15, 10:51 AM

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 2:12:05 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.
> > >
> > > XC
> >
> > The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.
> >
> > The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.
> >
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?

Politely, yes you have missed a few facts in there. I and others have seen a competitor use FLARM to track a talented competitor out the gate, follow him half way around the course, jump to another, better thermal solely based on information on the FLARM display and win the day. This was a short task so that was all it took.

Others in Europe thought this FLARM following was not worthy of our esteem. It was quite out of control at the World Championships. I am not sure if the specs came from outside FLARM or were internal but the engineers put a team together to address this issue. Somebody thought a lot about this problem and developed a solution.

Know this type of flying was happening, we had a national contest using the available stealth feature of FLARM. Collision avoidance warnings were found to be quite satisfactory in this contest mode. There were a few who had trouble configuring initially but at the end of the event pilot satisfaction was close to 100%. I don't know of anyone who disliked actually using it.

I still believe the competition mode can be implemented just as well or better with ADS-B technology.

Those in this forum who are strongly opposed to FLARM stealth mode are those who have not tried it. I suggest we have a few more contests with FLARM to allow others to gain experience with it. With all this debate and heightened awareness, plus some good tasking, plus the warnings provided by mandatory FLARM at Nephi I am sure will be a very safe contest.

XC

Casey Cox

December 3rd 15, 12:40 PM

Anyone or clubs using FLARM to help the new XC pilot? Thought I saw a thread awhile back mentioning why are not more pilots venturing into XC and just hanging around the strip. Would FLARM help them keep track of others in the air and give direction and altitude that they could use to feel more confident in venturing further?

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 3rd 15, 01:51 PM

Yes. Many pilots flying at OLC and XC events - or even casual XC flying - use Flarm to buddy fly. When used with simple, short radio communications it makes it pretty easy to get together and stay together, though generally the more experienced pilot(s) will need to pay attention to not getting too far out front as knowing where the lead glider is located is quite a different matter from catching up to it.

jfitch

December 3rd 15, 04:18 PM

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 2:51:32 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 2:12:05 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.
> > > >
> > > > XC
> > >
> > > The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.
> > >
> > > The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane BB
> >
> > It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?
>
> Politely, yes you have missed a few facts in there. I and others have seen a competitor use FLARM to track a talented competitor out the gate, follow him half way around the course, jump to another, better thermal solely based on information on the FLARM display and win the day. This was a short task so that was all it took.
>
> Others in Europe thought this FLARM following was not worthy of our esteem. It was quite out of control at the World Championships. I am not sure if the specs came from outside FLARM or were internal but the engineers put a team together to address this issue. Somebody thought a lot about this problem and developed a solution.
>
> Know this type of flying was happening, we had a national contest using the available stealth feature of FLARM. Collision avoidance warnings were found to be quite satisfactory in this contest mode. There were a few who had trouble configuring initially but at the end of the event pilot satisfaction was close to 100%. I don't know of anyone who disliked actually using it..
>
> I still believe the competition mode can be implemented just as well or better with ADS-B technology.
>
> Those in this forum who are strongly opposed to FLARM stealth mode are those who have not tried it. I suggest we have a few more contests with FLARM to allow others to gain experience with it. With all this debate and heightened awareness, plus some good tasking, plus the warnings provided by mandatory FLARM at Nephi I am sure will be a very safe contest.
>
>
> XC

I'd like to see some data. We have anecdotes that this type of flying occurs and that it materially affects the scores. We have many more anecdotes about alien abduction, but not everyone accepts it as fact. The only data I have seen has been put forth by Andy, and it seems to disprove the stealth position. Surely if the practice is that widespread and to such great effect, someone can put produce evidence - not just anecdotes - for their case. Regardless of how it is spun, only 30% of pilots in the SSA poll favored mandatory stealth (20% in regionals), while 40% said non-stealth Flarm enhances enjoyment and only 24% said it hinders. There is some data, and it can hardly be spun as popular support. I believe the chances of getting the FAA to hobble ADS-B for the sake of a few glider pilots is vanishingly small.

So again:

No objective evidence of a problem has been given.
Manufacturer recommends against it.
No popular pilot support in the SSA poll.
Obsolete by ADS-B in a few years.

Why are we doing it?